Re: Why I'm working on a NetBSD conversion

[Jens Rehsack <rehsack%gmail.com@localhost>]

Am 26.10.2014 um 13:16 schrieb Roy Marples <roy%marples.name@localhost>:

> On Sunday 26 Oct 2014 12:22:11 Martin Husemann wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2014 at 11:59:47AM +0100, Jens Rehsack wrote:
>>> As far as I understood Joerg, that would satisfy fossil people as well.
>>> But a very important point in tooling was, that the utility to checkout
>>> is distributed with the base system. Neither hg nor git can satisfy here.
>> 
>> I know this has been stated as a requirement, but just for the record: I
>> disagree with it.
> 
> For another metric I agree with distributing the SCM with NetBSD.

I'm fine with both :D

But I recognize a lot more contributions of any project I maintain when
it's DSCM based. And even more when there is a GitHub entry ...

> I like the fact that NetBSD is not only self building, but also self hosting 
> (small http/ftp server) and self updating (current bundled csv).
> 
> Still, scmgit-base could be distributed with the base system i think as that 
> part doesn't rely on perl or python. I prefer fossil though.

Well - there are huge progresses made in Perl5 ecosystem which removed a
lot of trouble around 5.6 .. 5.10 was there. I've seen a lot of at least
perl sources in git-exec binaries (python wasn't that much - but might
depend on focus).

Is it reasonable to analyze what must be included into base when fossil, git
or hg shall be distributed with base (just for have reliable information).

Cheers
-- 
Jens Rehsack
rehsack%gmail.com@localhost