Hi,
The CVS repository on un has been inaccessible for quite some time now. I would like to suggest that we move it elsewhere: I would be willing to host it on a colo machine I run providing pserver access. This would additionally allow anonymous access which hasn't been the case so far.
Thoughts?
On Tue 10 May 2005, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
The CVS repository on un has been inaccessible for quite some time now. I would like to suggest that we move it elsewhere: I would be willing to host it on a colo machine I run providing pserver access. This would additionally allow anonymous access which hasn't been the case so far.
Yes please! Get in touch with doop and ask if he can get the tarred repository to you. Sneakernet will probably have to be involved at some point, but I'm sure he can sort it out.
Kake
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:01:28PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:
Yes please! Get in touch with doop and ask if he can get the tarred repository to you. Sneakernet will probably have to be involved at some point, but I'm sure he can sort it out.
Okay, cool.
*thinking, thinking*
I might have a play with Subversion[1] too. Assuming the history can be imported well (which I believe it can be) would there be any interest in switching to that? For common use, subversion is very similar to CVS, but has a few nifty extra features, and is much more flexible in how it can be set up server-side.
Cheers,
[1] http://subversion.tigris.org/
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:39:11PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 02:01:28PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote: I might have a play with Subversion[1] too. Assuming the history can be imported well (which I believe it can be) would there be any interest in
It can be: look for "cvs2svn".
switching to that? For common use, subversion is very similar to CVS, but has a few nifty extra features, and is much more flexible in how it can be set up server-side.
I'm in favor of Subversion, if only because it means that I can checkout with just a URL. (CVS has always confused me, SVN doesn't.) However, branching in subversion is difficult: keep that in mind if you're going to need to branch.
On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:49:28AM -0400, Christopher Schmidt wrote:
I'm in favor of Subversion, if only because it means that I can checkout with just a URL. (CVS has always confused me, SVN doesn't.) However, branching in subversion is difficult: keep that in mind if you're going to need to branch.
Branches are not that likely, but we do have some release tags in there which will bloat the svn repo somewhat, so I'll leave them out of the import unless there are objections.
Current plan will be to have a publically accessible SVN repo up and running by the end of Saturday (but this also depends on doing a partial upgrade to debian sarge on the machine in question). I have the CVS repo tarball; thanks to doop for that.
On Thu 12 May 2005, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
Branches are not that likely, but we do have some release tags in there which will bloat the svn repo somewhat, so I'll leave them out of the import unless there are objections.
I think the tag for the most recent release is the most important. It's handy to be able to see what's been added that isn't in a release yet.
Kake
On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 06:14:42PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:
On Thu 12 May 2005, Dominic Hargreaves dom@earth.li wrote:
Branches are not that likely, but we do have some release tags in there which will bloat the svn repo somewhat, so I'll leave them out of the import unless there are objections.
I think the tag for the most recent release is the most important. It's handy to be able to see what's been added that isn't in a release yet.
That's a fair point. Since tags are just copies in SVN, it's easy to clear up cruft later if needed, so I'll keep them in for now.
openguides-dev@lists.openguides.org
-
crschmidt＠crschmidt.net -
Dominic Hargreaves -
Kake L Pugh