Host AP/hostapd/wpa_supplicant repository and cvs vs. git

[Jouni Malinen]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 12:27:11AM -0500, Pavel Roskin wrote:

> First of all, I'm very positive about switching to git.  After trying
> git, CVS doesn't feel like a version control system at all ("cvs log"
> doesn't do the right thing) and even subversion seems limited (where's
> gitk for subversion?)

Compared to CVS, many things look quite a bit nicer.. ;-) However, I
don't see subversion going far enough to justify the effort to
converting from CVS (when it is used in the way I use it; i.e., commits
considered as changesets and additional tools used to process these
changesets).

> Mercurial is good, but I would prefer git for anything kernel related
> just for compatibility reasons.

That is one of my main reasons for git, too. I have to use it for kernel
development anyway, so why not use the same tool for other parts of the
project. Kernel development with git is also likely to make sure that
someone will continue maintaining git for the foreseeable future.

One concern with git has been mentioned and that is availability of it
for all the target systems that are currently used for wpa_supplicant or
hostapd development. I want to make sure that at least *BSD have easy
access to the needed tools before replacing CVS. Windows (or at least
cygwin) support would also be nice to have.
 
-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA