On 02/14/12 14:48, David Chisnall wrote:
On 14 Feb 2012, at 13:46, Gregory Casamento wrote:
Keeping SVN is a mistake given what has been demonstrated by GNA's
failure. SVN gives us a single point of failure. A DVCS would
eliminate that problem.
I'm not sure I fully agree with this. The single point of failure exists in
any system where w have an authoritative repository. We could have an official
git-svn mirror somewhere, or even a svn mirror using svncync that became the
authoritative one when GNA was down if the only issue is being able to get at
the code when gna is down.
If it is indeed possible to have a svn mirror with that tool and have it
become authoritative with savannah goes town and get GNA up (or the
other way) it would be enough and would allow us to work with SVN.
Apparently, the only reason to switch to a DCVS is to get away with the
failure of the server which our free hostings incur about once a year...
For the rest, SVN with a flat structure would be more than adequate and
provides us a portable, proven, maintained and well-known tool.
Riccardo
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnustep mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
