Re: [Cvs-dev] CVS maintenance question

[Mark D Baushke]

Greetings,

Everyone is correct that cvs 1.11.23 is ancient and 1.12.13 is also very
old as is 1.12.13.1 (this is what you get when you checkout the
top-of-tree).

At the time that Derek was last working on the project, code was not yet
completely finished that exists in the HEAD of the CVS sources.

We should probably consider a release of 1.11.24 with accumulated
security fixes from the various distributions still using 1.11.x.

The state of the top-of-tree HEAD (aka 1.12.13.1) is not as clean as it
should be.  It builds okay and may work on many machines, but not all of
the machines that are supported by 1.12.13.

There are some Windows patches on the cvs1-12-13-win-fix branch.
It was tagged as cvs1-12-13a and added a fix by Jim Hyslop for at least
some of the Windows issues.

Does anyone have good suggestions for how to have a sane release that
starts with cvs1-12-13-win-fix and proceeds to add the safer fixes and
extensions presently available at the top-of-tree 1.12.13.1 ?

One idea could have that 1.12.13.1 should be left behind and 1.13.1 be
created as a fork from cvs1-12-13-win-fix branch, then patched with
missing commits from 1.12.23 and any 1.11.24 bug fixes plus vendor
patches that folks feel should be in it.

Then create 1.14.x as a place to put future changes like all of the
GNULIB extras. The downside of that is one of License.

At present, both CVS 1.11.* and 1.12.* are licensed under GPLv2+.
Movement to a newer GNULIB would mean moving to GPLv3+ which I believe
could be a potential problem for the NetBSD and FreeBSD folks. I am not
presently following OpenBSD use of CVS.

Would anyone be able to tell me if moving to GPLv3+ is still a big deal
today?

--
Mark D Baushke
address@hidden