[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] source repository at Apache

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:19:02 -0500

On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Fabien COELHO <fabien.coelho_at_ensmp.fr> wrote:
>>> Instead of that, it is going to be a full renumbering, possibly some
>>> renaming, and breaking every reference inside and outside of the project,
>>> for an added value which is still eluding me.
>> The way I see it is yes, it will be a pain, but it is good for us to
>> experience at least the amount of pain that we expect many of our users
>> will (~have to) experience in their real use of Subversion. The idea (to
>> me) is that this will encourage us to make Subversion better at handling
>> this sort of real-life change, and become less blasé about telling users
>> that they can and should just cope with this sort of change without
>> better support from us.
> With such a sadistic/masochist argument (it is both of them), we could
> also revert to CVS or copying files around just for the sake of knowing
> that a tool helps a little...
> I have done rcs to svn conversions in the past, I have merged distinct svn
> repositories, I already know it may be painful, I also know I have to help
> for that, I assure you I am not at all blasé about it, and you really do
> not need to remind me these issues by breaking the consistency of the
> subversion repository:-)

For me, it comes down to that I do not want our project to be treated
"special". No other project that joins the ASF is given the option of
having their own repository, so neither should we. Not only would it
be bad community etiquette on our part to ask for it, it would set a
bad precedent for the future. What if some other big project wants to
move to Apache but would only do so if they can use Mercurial or some
other version control tool?

If the ASF infrastructure team had told us they would prefer to have
us live in our own repository so that they could isolate our usage of
release candidates, then I would be OK with that. But given that they
are willing to run the release candidates on the main repository, I
believe we should be treated like all other ASF projects.

I also believe that if we are treated as a special case, it opens up
the door for problems in the future. Maybe someone forgets to back up
our repository or does not know the special way to handle it. Maybe
we do not get the geographic mirrors for our repository etc.

The pain we will experience from having to do this will hopefully be
offset by being able to recognize improvements we can make to
Subversion to better support this kind of repository setup.

Mark Phippard
Received on 2009-11-11 21:48:12 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.