[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "vendor branch"
From: |
Richard Stallman |
Subject: |
Re: "vendor branch" |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:25:07 -0600 (MDT) |
I asked why an Emacs CVS interface has a command for "vendor branch",
and Stephan Monnier replied:
It comes from the original motivation for CVS: keep a local repository with
local changes to some externally developed program. You keep the
vendor's source code on a branch called the vendor branch (normally
1.1.1) and you keep your own version on the trunk.
I suspected it was something like that. The problem with this
terminology is the assumption that the original version of the program
came to you from a "vendor". That assumption essentially denies the
existence of organizations such as the FSF, or the CVS developers
likewise, which develop software but are not vendors.
Ten years ago I convinced the POSIX committee to get rid of certain
statements which assumed every system has a "vendor". Can we replace
"vendor" in CVS with some other term that doesn't make that
assumption? Perhaps "original" version?
- Re: "vendor branch",
Richard Stallman <=