[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

From: Quentin Mathé
Subject: Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 13:25:56 +0200

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

On 2005-10-18 18:36:23 -0600 Andrew Ruder <address@hidden> wrote:

*'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 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 He does not like

Why he doesn't like ?

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.


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 Mathé

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]