Re: [GNUe-dev] Savannah and CVS

[Derek Neighbors]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

James Thompson wrote:
| On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Jan Ischebeck wrote:
|>as Savannah is down at the moment and development of GNUe shouldn't
|>stand still for too long, I want to ask you all about your opinions on
|>two issues:
|>
| Not to bite the hand that feeds us but this outage seems a bit much.  I
| realize that savannah is provided free and maintained by volunteer time
| but 2 weeks is painfull.

2 weeks is UNACCEPTABLE.

| Also, did anyone get the diffs savannah was supposed to send out from the
| Sept 16 vs current.  I was asked if I had verified our source was not
| trojaned but I've not seen any diffs yet to verify :(

I have not recieved anything.  Furthermore, the gyrations it appears I
will have to take to get back on Savannah are more time consuming than
my desire to do so, which doesn't help matters.

|>1. Is everybody content with the cvs repository on subversions.gnu.org
|>or should we consider any other revision control system like subversion,
|>arch ...
|
| I have never used arch.  I'm using subversion internally at math and for a
| personal project as well and really like it.  The one down side to it, if
| you can call it that, is that new releases happen alot and you have to
| dump/restore the repository during upgrades to be safe.

I am not content and would like to move to something else.  Personally
we were getting ready to setup subversions at work.  It sounds like
James is using that.  I would like to use something that is fairly
standard to my work, not something "different".  Since we haven't
implemented either at work we could just as well do "arch".  What are
the real differences and the maturity levels of each?

|>2. Even if we don't decide to change, what could be a temporary
|>solution? (f.e. deciding to send patches to address@hidden would be a
|>way)
|
|
| That might work but would still require we put a copy of the source up
| somewhere so that others could get a current copy.  If we're going to do
| that we may as well migrate gnue into the subversion install on ash for
| the time being and give access to the people actively making changes.
| Then when/if cvs is back up we'd have 1 massive "sync" patch (which would
| suck) if we decided to move back.

We need to migrate.  The patch method will eat more time than switching.
~   I think we need to try to meet in IRC if at all possible and gain
consensus and work out a plan.

- -Derek

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQE/2ds4Hb99+vQX/88RAlg8AKCANFj+IlEdyrVba9YMDVz6SWlPGwCfRW1n
mh2K6q+swM+WR4T+TURQnJU=
=TMoz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----