RCS: /etc and more

Filippo Spike Morelli fsm at spikelab.org
Fri Feb 10 13:42:19 UTC 2006

On Friday 10 February 2006 13:58, Ivan Krstic wrote:
> We don't want the overhead of introducing a whole other VCS just for the
> purposes of tracking one directory.

see subject, "and more". I wouldnt of course debate switching VCS just for the 
sake of versioning /etc, but for what I read, and that might be the problem, 
bzr will keep changing fast for a "long" while. And there are other possible 
interesting server side usages for a VCS besides versioning /etc.

From my point of view, if you default to X, and offer a service based on X, it 
would be better if all similar services were implemented with X to avoid 
duplication and management overhead, thus it's rather important. I'd like to 
avoid installing svn/svk to manage other stuff under a VCS if bzr is already 
in and /etc kept under it.

> This is not a problem -- bzr will 
> likely be ready to take on this task in Dapper+1;


> until then, it's 
> trivial to version /etc with the VCS of your choice.

Of course, but this doesnt answer my question: why are we gonna default to 
something that's not ready and it's only *likely* to be ready for next 
version when we have "better" solutions?

Dont get me wrong, I'm not trying to push for a change, just trying to 
understand why we're going that way. Probably I'm just missing some obvious 
piece of information like all the ubuntu devel done under bzr or similar, so 
it's natural to default to that. Incidentally I'm a svn/svk user, and have no 
knowledge about bzr but for what I read on the website, so that could concur 
to some misunderstanding too.



"And then the lord said to John: "Come forth and gain eternal life."
But John came fifth and won a toaster."
						some guy on irc

More information about the ubuntu-server mailing list