Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Quentin Mathé]

Le 21 oct. 05 à 22:50, Adam Fedor a écrit :

> On 2005-10-18 18:36:23 -0600 Andrew Ruder <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > * Gna.org's hosting service has been nixed more or less by most.  I
> >   don't think that this is worth pursuing because of the overall
> >   negative response.
>
> I've think I've forgotten - why was gna.org nixed?

I wouldn't be so negative about GNA, they are a bit understaffed but  
less than Savannah (I remember one or two days commit mails  
interruption this year). However there is a minor issue, you can  
reach the web site only through 'https' it seems, which means the  
initial connection is slow (but not subsequent pages load).

> The reason I ask is that I talked to RMS and surprisingly, he's not  
> opposed to us moving the repository if we really want to, although  
> he would prefer us going to gna.org. He does not like sourceware.org

Why he doesn't like sourceware.org ?

> We should also talk about all the implications this might involve.  
> For instance, the current CVS archive at savannah will still be  
> there, so we have to inform people about that.

Yes.

> Plus we can't say, 'just update from CVS' to everyone who has a  
> problem anymore. Most people won't have svn, even if they knew how  
> to do that stuff. We need to update things like the daily snapshots.

GNA provides daily snaphots of repositories automatically, may be  
that can be tweaked in a way which allows us to do daily repository  
part snapshots.

> I wonder if we could still mirror the repository on CVS? Either at  
> gna or savannah. Even if it is read-only.

iirc they are tools to synchronize between cvs and svn repositories.  
Otherwise SVK would be able to do it.

Quentin.

--
Quentin Mathé
address@hidden