> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 05 November 2002 18:46
> Leo Simons wrote: >> >>> +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;) >> >> I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :) >> >> I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think >> it was a lot better than CVS. > > i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project > in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure > people. > for instance, aside from the history import aspect, cvs2svn > how does it mesh with viewcvs? meshes well ;). viewcvs was refactored and now has two backends, cvs and svn. Although I do remember a small issue with the svn backend, not sure if that is resolved by now. > the equivalent of anoncvs? Simply use httpd authorization rules. With a LimitExcept block the write operations can be required to be from an authenticated user, while read operations simply fall through without ever prompting for a password (an improvement). > and do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms > systems on collab, We are going to make the transition some day. And not everything is going to be switched over night anyway, so maintaining two scm systems for a period of time is inevitable. > plus prototype all the infrastructural glue > necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories? All the basic stuff we need is present in the subversion repository. Hook scripts for commit mailing, fine grained access control, etc. > i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on > it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but > i don't think we should go it alone. Indeed, we should move other projects to Subversion aswell ;) :) Sander 'in a good mood'
