SCM choices for the server (was Re: kdrive and xgl DDXes)

[Adam Jackson]

On Wednesday 22 June 2005 13:13, Keith Packard wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-06-22 at 13:05 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > Fair enough.  Are we planning to move kdrive and xgl into the same CVS
> > module as the other DDXes at some point?
>
> Dunno.  It's kinda nice to have a place to play that doesn't affect any
> distributions...
>
> Would be nicer if we had a 'real' SCM.

I definitely agree.  And before we go any further down that line of 
discussion, let's formally declare what seems to be the consensus:

    kdrive and xgl will not be in 7.0.

So there.  We may want to tag and tarball that tree at some point for a 
semi-stable release, but that's a parallel effort.

So the next question is how we want server development to look in the future, 
and tied up in that decision is our choice of SCM.  I think if we stay with 
CVS for the release server, then we definitely need a separate tree for 
experimental, which means the joy of syncing.  I suspect no one wants to use 
CVS more than necessary though.

I don't know enough about the choices to make any authoritative decision, and 
I certainly don't expect any consensus out of this thread.  But I would like 
to hear some ideas.

- ajax
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-modular/attachments/20050622/02008656/attachment.pgp