Re: Version control support call for help

[Kai Willadsen <kai willadsen gmail com>]

On 4 June 2013 06:38, Kai Willadsen <kai willadsen gmail com> wrote:
<snip>
> We also have:
>  * Fossil - Relatively new and looks okay, but it needs to use newer Meld API.
>  * SVK - As long as it just works like SVN it can stay.
>
> And in the totally-unmaintained column:
>  * Monotone - Our 'interface version' support is 9.0, and they're at 13.0. I
>    have no idea whether anyone is using this or whether it works.
>  * Darcs - Our module code looks okay, but I have no idea what its status is.
>  * CVS - I guess people still use this? It doesn't support *any* modern VC
>    capabilities, and is becoming increasingly difficult to deal with.
>  * RCS - Really?
>
> Our Monotone and Darcs modules haven't been touched by anyone who actually
> uses them in *four years*. It's two or three years for CVS and RCS.
>
> One of my goals for 1.7.4 is to migrate all VC modules to get rid of the
> diff-then-patch approach to getting repository versions of files, and I'm
> not above removing support for the above systems in order to get there. I'd
> like to support as wide a range of systems as possible, but right now it's
> just not happening.

I've 'ported' Fossil, Monotone, and Darcs to the new
get_path_for_repo_file() API, and they work in my *very* limited
testing. I would be astonished if the support was robust, but since a
couple of those modules didn't work in either 1.7.2 or 1.7.3 and
no-one complained, I don't know that there's a large user base who
cares.

I've moved all of the unpleasant diff-then-patch logic into the CVS
module so that it can break all by its lonesome.

Meld no longer supports RCS.

cheers,
Kai