Re: Why not give git a try? (was "Re: [head tinderbox] failure o


On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Diane Bruce <db@db.net> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 08:02:37PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
>> On 24 January 2011 19:31, Diane Bruce <db@db.net> wrote:
>>
>> > As long as it is not GPL.
>>
>> Unless there's a missing smiley in that sentence there, it is a tough
>
> IRL I'm known to be very dry humoured, I am deadly in e-mail or IRC.
>
>> requirement. Of the major SCMs, only Subversion is non-GPL-ed (even
>
> QED
>
>> CVS is...).
>
> CVS is/was dual licenced. There is also the work openbsd started with CVS
> sometime ago.
>
> Given the work that is being done on clang/llvm to get a non GPL compiler
> into the tree, perhaps efforts would be better spent on finding SCMs
> that were also non GPL. There certainly would not be a chance of putting
> mercurial or git into base for example.

    But we don't compile CVS, SVN, etc into our sources. I thought
that was the whole point of doing the gcc -> clang (and friends)
conversion, not that the GPL is an undesirable license. Maybe I was
missing something about the whole textproc stuff being replaced though
(groff, etc) with NetBSD equivalents *shrugs*.
    Given that this is getting more philosophical than technical,
maybe we should move the discussion elsewhere (i.e. not hackers@)?

> Perhaps a point to consider.

Thanks!
-Garrett
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"