Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Alex Perez]

Gregory John Casamento wrote:
> Adam,
>
> --- Adam Fedor <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > 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? 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
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> We could probably have savannah-hackers put something on the page saying that
> "this project has been moved".

This is what permanent HTTP redirects are for. Please, if we were to go 
the route of moving,  don't request that a nasty page with a "please 
click on the link below or a meta-redirect be set up when there is a 
proper solution (HTTP redirect, which is a one-liner, specified in the 
apache config for http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/wherever (as I write 
this, savannah seems to be offline, as I cannot visit it via HTTP or 
HTTPS nor ping 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.
> >
> > I wonder if we could still mirror the repository on CVS? Either at gna 
> > or savannah. Even if it is read-only.
>
> We should probably just move to SVN outright.

Yes, what's the point of mirroring to CVS, when there are snapshots? It 
seems like a massive waste of time. We shouldn't be encouraging people 
to use CVS/SVN anyways.
> > 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.
>
> Quite true.

Yes, and their understaffedness isn't likely to change any time soon, 
either.