[SCM TRANSITION] Re: Proposal: move Randr protocol and library to git
eich at suse.de
Tue Apr 18 10:29:46 PDT 2006
Diego Calleja writes:
> El Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:08:00 +0200,
> Egbert Eich <eich at suse.de> escribió:
> > - To take advantage of a new and improved API a user may have to
> > upgrade numerous modules at once.
> >From my own user perspective this doesn't matters that much. If you're
> an user and you're trying new things you may need to download projects
> not hosted in fdo.org, ej: kernel snapshots when dealing with drm or a
> metacity version featuring some new feature. And from a user perspective
> using several SCMs is not an issue at all, since you just do "cvs update",
> "git pull", "svn whatever" or switch branches if anything. Also, for a
Right. The difference is: you know what to use for which project and
it is hardly going to change (there are always exceptions).
In the present situation you have to keep track which xorg module has
been moved to GIT (so far we luckily have not seen any other SCM appear).
> user the code is read-only, so it's possible to use git -> cvs gateways
> if using several SCMs gets to be a problem.
Well, I agree that cvs gateways will make things more easy for users.
It will however only hide the underlying problem that we have been stuck
with CVS for so long because there was no chance for a consensus on
Also please don't confuse fd.o with xorg: fd.o is desinged to accomodate
numerous different projects of different sizes and goals. It is only
natural to offer them a variety of different SCMs.
More information about the xorg