Jeff Waugh wrote: > Hi, Hi,
Just wanted to agree, this would be great. I don't see any problem with continuing using Baz as it's currently connected to the CVS. It's definitely something that I will be doing myself. But having Subversion instead of CVS is a lowrisk/high-gain transition that we can do today and it makes a lot of sense doing so. Best Regards, Mikael Hallendal > Could the sysadmin team please investigate the creation of a Subversion repo > on container with ssh access (as per current CVS configuration), and perhaps > try one of the CVS conversion scripts to see whether a module of reasonable > age, branchiness and complexity (maybe gnome-panel would be a good choice) > migrates sanely. > > None of the existing scripts seem to be particularly good for migration of > long-running projects like ours, but I've heard reports that the cut-and-run > approach [1] has annoyed projects after migration (such as Samba). We'll > have to figure out which path suits us better, and the only way we're ever > going to get traction on this is to test it out. > > baz is another option, with existing high quality full history imports [2], > but the consensus seems to lean towards Subversion. So let's try it. > > Thanks, > > - Jeff > > [1] Checking in the latest code, not migrating historical data. > [2] arch.ubuntu.com, you should also check James Henstridge's recent blog > entries about using baz -> it's easy, don't be scared by the ravings of > version control geeks. > -- Imendio AB, http://www.imendio.com/ _______________________________________________ Gnome-infrastructure mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-infrastructure
