A very interesting read! Looks like a really nice tool. We may consider it ourselves in-house, as the infrastructure has some really nice features!

Thanks for the heads up!

Web Maestro Clay

On Jun 11, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Peter B. West wrote:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: CVS and Subversion
Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:17:27 +0200
From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
CC: Apache Infrastructure <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

In reaction to some worried emails related to some projects moving from
CVS to Subversion.

->   Do not panic.

->   There is no ASF driven push (yet) for this move, no deadlines, no

->   It is you, the developers yourself, in each project who decide for
        when and if it is time to go to Subversion - just let infrastructure
        and they'll help you with the transition.

->   But I urge you to give it a look - it is a darn cool piece of
technology; and
        it integrates very nicely with other tools.

And although it is true that Subversion is young and has a serious
footprint - it does have
one important feature for projects like the ASF:  it no longer
requires user accounts in order
to do commits. So in theory it is easier to secure a box and guard
against changes under the
hood; i.e. done to the repository directly. And thus tamper with our
record of history - as right
now developers -must- have r/w access to disk with the repository
itself on the CVS machine.
With about a thousand committers using several thousands of machines
back home and a
ssh/password based access controls it is a given that things leak over
time. And one leak is
quite enough.

Thus reducing history/repository access alone is something the ASF as
the legal steward
of the code cares about a lot. (Those who where around a few years back
during the last
compromise of the  CVS  machine may recall the countless hours of work
when we had to
pour over the CVS  records and backups to certify each and every file).
It also means that
subversion is easier to sandbox - thus further minimizing the damage
from 'real' exploits.

So all in all - it is a step  forward; but yes a relatively young step
- and that is why we are
not yet making this an ASF wide compulsory change.

Secondly Ben Laurie/infrastructure is working on a ASF wide Certificate
Authority in the
Bunker.co.uk using a machine specially donated by Ironsystems.com/Cliff
Skolnick. Once
that is in place we've added an other much needed layer which allows us
to continue to
scale in numbers of developers without suddenly needing a dozen full
time sysadmins :)
and it allows us to decrease the sensitive information, like password
files, which need
to be managed on a daily basis by multiple people on the machines even

And ultimately it means that it becomes more and more possible to rely
less on a
'unix root' admin - and means that we can handle the mutations from the
then several
thousands of commtiters on a timely basis.

So in sort - and to stress: there are no deadlines, pushing or sticks
to get projects
to move from CVS to Subversion. Just the above carrots. But unless the
early projects
hit some major snags with subversion - DO expect the ASF to move there
in the next
two or three years - to allow us to continue to scale the
infrastructure along with the
number of developers and their demands while being good stewards to our
heritage at the same time

On a positive note; do look at subversion; play with it - and note that
its modern
infrastructure and standard based protocols do allow for levels of
previously hard to attain.


Dirk-Willem van Gulik, President of the Apache Software Foundation.

-- Peter B. West <http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html>

Reply via email to