[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

From: Alex Perez
Subject: Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration
Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 20:44:43 -0700
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.6a1 (Windows/20051010)

Gregory John Casamento wrote:

--- Adam Fedor <address@hidden> 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

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 (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.

reply via email to

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