[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

From: Andrew Ruder
Subject: Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:56:50 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i

On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:50:39PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote:
> 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? 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

People were rather hesitant to move off of savannah.  As this may not be
a problem with RMS, perhaps would be the way to go.

> 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.

Perhaps we can have the savannah folks disable it?

> 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.

Well, does have daily snapshots, we will probably have to work
out what they are taking snapshots of with them.  Subversion is becoming
more and more standard in distributions.  Most modern linux
distributions will either have it included or easily available, I

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

Is there any reason to keep the CVS access?  Ideally we should just move
full over.  If there are some people that don't like it, tough.  They
can adjust ;)

For the most part, snapshots should fulfill the task of telling people
to upgrade to the latest if they really can't install subversion.  The
idea of source-code management is to make life easy for -developers-,
users should just be waiting for the release or they can accept that
they may need to compile an additional tool (svn).

> I'm still not sure I want to leave savannah, but they're so 
> understaffed, it seems like it could be a long long time before they 
> have a useful system working.

Is there anything in particular keeping you at savannah?  The way I see
it, if savannah is unable to keep up with changing times and there is
another FSF ran service that can, there's really no reason to feel like
we must stay with savannah.  Of course, maybe there are other reasons as

In other news, when we want to make the transition, give me a holler,
I'll grab the latest cvs backup, and handle the conversion.  It takes
a few hours to do something as large as gnustep with full history and
the dumpfile will be around ~60 megs gzipped so it may need to be
coordinated with the people somewhat and make sure they realize
that we've got something this big to start with (and it'll probably take
them a while to get the actual svn repos up and going from the
dumpfile).  If we decide to make the move, I can contact the

I was thinking some sort of layout like:


and so on.

We could then have something like:


which would actually pull in the trunk from all the other locations.
(Using svn:externals) That way -base is in its own hierarchy, but you
can easily pull in /modules/core and get something similar to pulling
the core directory in cvs.

Also, perhaps something like:


for anyone that would like a place to experiment...

I'm fully in support of this move, and I think it would really aid
development ease and speed (after some initial adjustment).

- Andy

Andrew Ruder

reply via email to

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