Dropping TDB

[Matthias Andree]

Clint Adams <schizo at debian.org> writes:

>> If you're willing to support TDB, would you have the ressources to
>> maintain it directly in bogofilter's CVS tree in cooperation with David
>> and myself? That would build upon what we have now, which has been
>> broken every now and then because I don't usually test it, and the next
>> time to test would be some 1.0 release candidate - the only thing is
>> we'd require you to test TDB support is fine before we release a new
>> version.
>
> If someone were to run a CVS->Arch gateway, people could much more
> easily maintain TDB or other database support independent of the
> official release (and thereby avoiding the requirement you mention).
> Just a thought.

I don't trust Arch yet. Partly because of the Landry ArX vs. Official
Lord & Co. GNU Arch split, partly because last time I tried tla-1.2 its
documentation was incomplete and inconsistent - if things have changed
considerably since those days, let me know and recommend which branch.

The thought to run regression tests before releases for all code that is
there is unavoidable. Of course we can condemn somebody else to do that
separately, OTOH I for one would not shed a single tear over CVS, which
is hard to work with when it comes to branching, merging or versioning
directory-level changes, but I need to trust the revision control
system. CVS is ok, SVN, BitKeeper are halfway fine. I haven't used mcvs
or Arch or ArX in production yet, and I'm not familiar with the latter
two, gateways, browsing scripts (such as viewcvs) and so on. I
understand the latter may not be direly needed for Arch repos though.

I'm fine though with anything that is solid, fast (SourceForge's CVS is
everything but fast) and works well.

-- 
Matthias Andree