On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 16:04, Rob Weir <apa...@robweir.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 3:33 PM, Mathias Bauer <mathias_ba...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Moin, >> >> On 05.07.2011 18:14, Mathias Bauer wrote: >... >> Do we really want to have code in the svn repo that will never be used? >> The alternative would be to add cws to svn only after review.
Having code in the repository is fine. It is better to have it there and not need it, then to need it and not have it there. As people have stated, these extra CWSs do not add that much more space. And Apache has more than enough disk space. It is not a concern. > Right. That is why I was thinking that maybe we just create an > archival copy of the entire repository, including all CWS, and host > that as a read only Hg or git instance. Then migrate the trunk to > SVN, If there are some CWS that we know are already approved for > 3.4, then include those as well. Apache only has one repository: Subversion. The read-only Git instance is simply a mirror of the canonical Subversion repository. > That way, if someone does come by, months later, and decide they want > to complete work CWS, then they can still clone them and work on them. > But then they would need to copy them into a SVN working copy, and > merge and commit from there. Obviously, this does complicate things > for the future CWS developers. But they are in the best position to > stabilize and merge their work. Haven't we already gone through the whole discussion about CWSs that may rename files, and that we want to do that rename within Hg before converting to Subversion? Let's not mess around with multiple repositories. That is just making it difficult for us. How is somebody supposed to investigate a CWS when it lives in a separate repository? That is just making it harder for ourselves. -g
