When will CVS be replaced by modern version control system?

[Christopher Aillon]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:25:32 +0100
> Matej Cepl <mcepl at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 15:12:43 +0100, Christopher Aillon scripst:
>> > But also keep in mind that much of the current package workflow has
>> > been defined by the limitations of CVS. Our current faux-branching
>> > scheme was in part done because of CVS, for example.
>> > [...]
>> > Returning to your original question, which I'll paraphrase as "what do
>> > we gain by moving away from CVS?"  Not much.  A small number of users
>> > will take advantage of the features that the new VCS gives them.
>> 
>> I think the thing we need to loose is the box where we keep our work-
>> flow. So for example, could somebody explain why in the time or DVCSs we 
>> still have tarball-based packaging?
> 
> So you can verify that you're using the upstream source as it was
> released, and not some custom fork of the code base.

I think Matej was implying we should point to the upstream repo and 
tagname instead of a tarball.  Then koji would checkout code from 
upstream without relying on us downloading, then subsequently uploading 
a tarball via make upload.