CVS/SVK/etc.

[Dan Widyono]

Is anyone proposing a specific re-implementation scenario?  I can see a lot
of theorizing on both sides, but nobody saying "let's try it *this* way, with
commits looking like *this*, and patches would be submitted like *this*, and
*this* would be the release trunk/tree/whatever, controlled by *these*
people, and a fringe developer would do *this* and *this* is what it would
look like to the "core developers".  Perhaps people are saying that but it
seems lost in the fog.  Well, okay, I see one proposal by Josh that was
actually implemented, and I kind of like that setup myself.  Perhaps if
people could explicitly say what would not work with that implementation,
why, and what could be changed (using actual implementation details, not
theory), that might go a long way to encouraging adoption of a different
model.

I personally had a trivial patch which I submitted via e-mail, and my e-mail
communications were certainly not ignored, but that's my two cents and only
my experience.  Due to completely separate reasons I've since lost my ability
and time to work on this project for a long time, perhaps I'll be able to
pick up again in a while.

At times, it seems that everyone is saying the same thing but in different
ways.  There are different ways to control who commits to the Released
versions, packaged versions, etc.  And that discussion, to me, seems
orthogonal to "which SCwhatever to use", since all modern source control
systems seem to support various methods of controlling developer permissions,
trunks, trees, releases, etc.

Dan W.

P.S.  I learned scheme to read GnuCash.  I don't like it, but I learned
it. :)