David Prévot wrote: > Actually, what is the problem with CVS? Other VCS may offer fancy > features that are actually useless for the website (use of branches or > whatever) An odd statement given that there is an existing and high profile branch of the Debian website right now. Also, the Debian Weekly News has always struggled with producing a newsletter in a system where branching is hard. That they currently have to have their own standalone (svn) repository with posts copied back to CVS says a lot. > and, at best of our knowledge, we have no information > concurring to the idea that it “is turning away contributors” It's hard to prove a negative. Contributors, seeing antiquated technology, custom systems, and continual resistance to change, may simply decide their efforts are better spent elsewhere. However, it's easy to show that *other* projects, by moving to more appealing revision control systems, do get more and better contributions. Also, "use git-cvs" is a weak sop to doing it properly. Our experience in the d-i team (which just finished converting to git) is that only highly motivated or core contributors bothered with the significant pain of using git-svn. That pain included a very long initial checkout process, and ongoing pain with keeping up-to-date, and not being able to share well with others, etc. I doubt git-cvs is much better. Projects of a similar size as webwml use git successfully too. The kernel is 2x the size and has nearly as many files. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature