On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 15:36:55 -0400 Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
definitely. this is not about removing things - but maybe shuffling visibility
of things like cvs from first port of call, to last port of call, and encourage
users to use alternate mechanisms to get the code that is ligh
* Laurence Vanek ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Lyle Kempler wrote:
> > Looking at get-e.org, the download page points to the E17 User's
> > Guide, which starts with "Installing from CVS". If we instead
> > changed the download page to "download this script and run it,
> > you'll need wget and tar an
Lyle Kempler wrote:
> Looking at get-e.org, the download page points to the E17 User's Guide,
> which starts with "Installing from CVS". If we instead changed the
> download page to "download this script and run it, you'll need wget and
> tar and bzip2 and ..", then new users could convert over wi
* Carsten Haitzler ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:45:19 -0400 Lyle Kempler
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > * Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > >personally i would have no problem i
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 10:39:42 -0500 Frederick Reeve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:55:02 -0400
> Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
> > Eugen Minciu wrote:
> >
> > > Any statistics on the load when 24 anon che
On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 12:43:06 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
> At this point I doubt you guys agree with my view. So, my opinion is
> probably wrong and this is just a case of me being hard-headed.
It's not a question of right or wrong. It's a question of return on
investment. Making the
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 22:55:02 -0400
Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
> Eugen Minciu wrote:
>
> > Any statistics on the load when 24 anon checkouts occur?
>
> Not specifically, but over the past 24 hours, the max 1 minute load
> averag
On 8/18/06, Eugen Minciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK. I'm done supporting git now ;) Time for other ideas.
> >From what has allready been presented I find anoncvs mirrors as a better
> >approach to tarballs, as many of us actually don't have the bandwith to
> >download a dist tarball every we
OK. I'm done supporting git now ;) Time for other ideas.
>From what has allready been presented I find anoncvs mirrors as a better
>approach to tarballs, as many of us actually don't have the bandwith to
>download a dist tarball every week.
CVS has hooks from what I can see.Yay. So after every c
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 12:43:06 +0300 Eugen Minciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:24:45 +0900
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > 1) Move the data into its own repository
>
> >
> > not going to happen. the data is an internal part of the pro
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:24:45 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1) Move the data into its own repository
>
> not going to happen. the data is an internal part of the projects - it gets
> modifed 8new icons, images etc.) and is part of the build process. so not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Fri, 18 Aug 2006 09:12:43 +0200
schrieb Slalomsk8er <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> As I wrote Raster (I wanted to write to this list but my mail client and
> I mixed things up), I think the ultimate way of addressing the server
> load would be BitTorrent a
As I wrote Raster (I wanted to write to this list but my mail client and
I mixed things up), I think the ultimate way of addressing the server
load would be BitTorrent as it is in principal a mirroring system and it
is easy to track the stats (someone mentioned this is not so easy with
cvs mirrors
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 06:04:37 +0300 Eugen Minciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Hi everyone.
>
> I've been doing some thinking today. And I've been doing some testing as
> well. And there are a few things I realized.
>
> The first thing I realized is a reason why the pseudo-benchmark I created wa
Chady Kassouf wrote:
> On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
>> tarballs.
>> what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server do daily
>> (or
>> maybe several times per day)
Hi everyone.
I've been doing some thinking today. And I've been doing some testing as well.
And there are a few things I realized.
The first thing I realized is a reason why the pseudo-benchmark I created was
giving out evil data. In git's case this is because git does a lot of extra
operation
On Thursday, 17 August 2006, at 11:15:50 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
> Any statistics on the load when 24 anon checkouts occur?
Not specifically, but over the past 24 hours, the max 1 minute load
average was 17.55, and the max 15 minute load average was 8.56.
Looks like 1800-2200 UTC is our pea
Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 08:21:17 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
>
>> agreed. i am not advocating REMOVING anoncvs as such - just removing
>> it as a "first priority anonymous source access" mechanism. putting
>> anoncvs access info into fineprint in some obs
On Friday, 18 August 2006, at 08:21:17 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> agreed. i am not advocating REMOVING anoncvs as such - just removing
> it as a "first priority anonymous source access" mechanism. putting
> anoncvs access info into fineprint in some obscure page linked off a
> download pag
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:45:19 -0400 Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> * Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
> > >tarballs. what do peo
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 "Chady Kassouf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
> > tarballs.
> > what do people think? should we perhaps have t
On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 03:37:06 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 "Chady Kassouf"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > personally i would have no problem
* Chady Kassouf ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
> >tarballs. what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs
> >server do daily (or maybe several times
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:50:22 +0200 "Chady Kassouf"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
> > tarballs.
> > what do people think? should we perhaps have t
On 8/17/06, Chady Kassouf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of
> tarballs.
> > what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server do daily
> (
On 8/17/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
personally i would have no problem in a server-side auto-build of tarballs.what do people think? should we perhaps have the anoncvs server do daily (ormaybe several times per day) builds of packages? not rpm or deb but "make
dist
> what do you say? would people be willing to switch to such snaps?
As user that just wanna have a "working" e17, so when a bugs is
pulling my leg, I sync every day. When everything just works fine
(as it does this week, for instance), I sync once a month, when
I think about it ;p
Since I use my
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 10:15:13 +0200 Stéphane Bauland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
> > On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
> >> tarball once a week and letting people use that (it
Hisham Mardam Bey wrote:
> On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
>> tarball once a week and letting people use that (it's not exactly
>> difficult to script). I highly doubt most users care about checkins in
>>
On 8/17/06, Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Personally I don't get why we're not creating nightly diffs and a
> tarball once a week and letting people use that (it's not exactly
> difficult to script). I highly doubt most users care about checkins in
> the last few hours, and I suggested
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 23:43:47 -0400
Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> CPU load depends entirely on the box, but anoncvs is a P4 1.7 GHz with
> 15 minute load averages fairly consistently under 2. And it's doing
> Not exactly. The machine is doing fine; the only problem is that I
> ha
On Thu, 17 Aug 2006 02:19:28 -0400
Lyle Kempler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Git is interesting and all, and may offer some development advantages,
> but I keep harking back to 2 statements made earlier in this thread: 1)
> that we're interested in performance, and 2) the developer base is
> prett
* Eugen Minciu ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I was thinking that you might want to try something if you get a
> second machine up.
>
> >From the man page of git-cvsimport:
> "Imports a CVS repository into git. It will either create a new
> repository, or incrementally import into an existing one."
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 14:48:36 (-0500),
Nathan Ingersoll wrote:
> Do we have any current statistics about the load on a CVS mirror?
> Might be easier to find more mirrors if we can give them some idea
> what sort of bandwidth, disk use and CPU load they can expect.
The repository current
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:51:39 +0100 Andrew Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> >
> > i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
> > cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
> > (these
Hello again,
I was thinking that you might want to try something if you get a second machine
up.
>From the man page of git-cvsimport:
"Imports a CVS repository into git. It will either create a new repository, or
incrementally import into an existing one."
So you might want to try using a "git
David Seikel wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:41:34 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
>> FUD. You can tag CVS without having a checkout. (Try cvs -H rtag.)
>> And SVN doesn't even HAVE tagging. It has copying, which contrary to
>> popular (SVN developer) belief, is NOT th
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>
> i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
> cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
> (these days) - though much more radical than move to svn :)
>
>
Of course one reason for using
It is better (imho) the disk space issue is valid, BUT it is not
server-side but client site.
The svn repo is pretty light on the server (no heavier than CVS, cp
commands are lightweight copies which can help) but on the client side
there is pretty much 2 copies of everything (i.e. a cache of the s
Dènis Riedijk escreveu:
> What I can say is that from a usability point of view it is very fast
> (that was Linus' number one design rule when he wrote git)
> For download performance it is probably important to pack the
> repository before checking out from a client. Pack files are supposed
> t
> now if you can - try "slowing down" the server.
I'm running a box I found in the trash, with a "designed for windows
95" sticker on the side; I would hope that's slow enough :P
On the down side, cvs2svn is taking ages -- it's currently translating
cvs commit 3000 / 25000 after about 3 hours...
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
>
> i think i should check git. i know svn enough to know its a viable move from
> cvs - but i know very little of git - but from the comments - it seems good
> (these days) - though much more radical than move to svn :)
Then try xcb
You can always ask some help on git@vger.kernel.org.Personally I have been following the development of git from a technical point of view out of interest, but at the moment I do not have a linux box unfortunately so I have not been able to play with it. It also has a tool (gitk) that visualizes me
Now I wonder what that 'Attatch' button does? ...
Sorry bout that.
Eugen.
scm_benchmark.rb
Description: Binary data
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:07:16 +0900
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> actually - i think we need to know how this works WITH data on disk - why?
> some
> scm's may invoke much more disk IO than others and thus bottleneck at the disk
> earlier than others. we need to kno
"Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)" wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:34:57 -0400 Kevin Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> > Kim Woelders wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
> > > limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let a
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:11:57 +0300 Eugen Minciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100
> Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good to take
> > them into account. (I'd recommend doing both, to see what effect the
>
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 00:08:18 +0200 Kim Woelders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
> limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
> branches or anything resembling changeset management.
>
> I think CVS amp
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:34:57 -0400 Kevin Brosius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Kim Woelders wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
> > limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
> > branches or anything resembling c
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:10:02 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
> > suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
>
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
> suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
> to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
> specific proced
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 14:58:42 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Wednesday, 16 August 2006, at 04:09:54 (+1000),
> David Seikel wrote:
>
> > I'm not assuming anything, I am responding to what you are actually
> > saying.
>
> That was the first time you'd actually responded t
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006 01:07:12 +0300 Eugen Minciu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Well I went outside for a while and it did me good. I have a new ideea for
> testing out the scm servers. Yay ;)
>
> Instead of trying to actually save the items on my hard disk I'll try to
> redirect them to /dev/null
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 19:07:13 +0200 Tilman Sauerbeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
babbled:
> Eugen Minciu [2006-08-14 15:29]:
> > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > > It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
> > >
> > > yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs se
Kim Woelders wrote:
>
>
>
> It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
> limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
> branches or anything resembling changeset management.
>
> I think CVS amply provides the features we need. It's simple and ro
So, if anyone has any connections now would be the time to mention it. these are the specs as we are thinking so far.cpu: dual core (amd (opteron) or intel (xeon)) (in my opinion, amd is a better chip and cheaper in some aspects. you can flame me on this one)
ram: 3-4gb of quality ram..
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 15:04:06 (-0700),
Inc wrote:
> well, thats what this is KainX. I have pretty much secured a donated
> box. I have also been working with raster to find the right box for
> us to buy. the place that I was going to have host the mirror said
> that its time for us to go
It seems to me that our SCM system feature requirements are extremely
limited. We hardly ever tag or branch, let alone do merging between
branches or anything resembling changeset management.
I think CVS amply provides the features we need. It's simple and robust.
It's far from perfect, but as Mi
Well I went outside for a while and it did me good. I have a new ideea for
testing out the scm servers. Yay ;)
Instead of trying to actually save the items on my hard disk I'll try to
redirect them to /dev/null. I allready saw how I can do this with cvs and I
hope I'll find a way to do it with
well, thats what this is KainX. I have pretty much secured a donated box. I have also been working with raster to find the right box for us to buy. the place that I was going to have host the mirror said that its time for us to go get our own box, so I let raster know that. I'll update you more on
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 14:31:53 (-0700),
Inc wrote:
> well, I've done a bit of a research on SVN vs. CVS.
Research isn't what we need. Performance comparison data is.
> The general census is that SVN was created to improve and replace
> CVS.
Yes, we know that. Whether it actually achi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eugen Minciu wrote:
> Now I know this is probably not going to sound right but how about a git
> repository?.
You may be interested in reading our[0] thread[1] about our search for
an SCM, with us deciding, in the end, on git. Mainly git is compare
well, I've done a bit of a research on SVN vs. CVS. The general census is that SVN was created to improve and replace CVS. I have heard its kinder to network resources and cpu usage and what not. The only thing is that it needs more disk space. Which honestly with the servers that we are looking at
On 8/15/06, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'd also be interested in comparisons of incremental checkouts. As I
> understand it, Git trees are complete repositories, not just
> checkouts. So a checkout-to-checkout comparison is unfair as Git is
> downloading a crapload more data
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 22:12:47 (+0300),
Eugen Minciu wrote:
> CVS:
> - Average checkout time: 41.843s
> - CPU used: Constantly around 70% (something like 60-80%
> - MEM used: 2-3%
>
> SVN (svnserve):
> - Average checkout time: 27.921s
> - CPU used: 50-90%
> - Mem used: 2%
>
> SVN (http
Hi,
I've spent a lot of time on this, but the results are ... shall we say ...
interesting. Before proceeding I have to remind you, again that I only used e17
without the version info, so you will probably want to try this out for
yourself.
The script I wrote checked the average time for a che
On Wednesday, 16 August 2006, at 04:09:54 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
> I'm not assuming anything, I am responding to what you are actually
> saying.
That was the first time you'd actually responded to *me*, and the only
other response you made indirectly to me was about the backend. I'll
refer
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 13:57:42 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> But by all means, please feel free to continue assuming I must not
> know what I'm talking about because my opinion differs with yours.
> It's much easier to write me off than to actually consider what I
> have to say
On Tuesday, 15 August 2006, at 19:01:54 (+1000),
David Seikel wrote:
> Your anti-SVN message is starting to sound like it's coming from
> someone that hasn't actually run a SVN server recently.
I admin 2 and am a developer on a third. But by all means, please
feel free to continue assuming I mus
> I have a problem because I didn't get all the cvs (just e17) and I don't
> have the history information anymore (you can't keep it unless you use
> a mechanism like rsync).
It was mentioned earlier that the large amount of history information
was SVN's bottleneck when you check out a fresh copy
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100
Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good to take
> them into account. (I'd recommend doing both, to see what effect the
> > I'll grab it 100 times with my laptop
...
> I was thinking a more appropriate benchm
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 16:55:50 +0100 Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
> suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
> to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
> specific procedur
I was just about to say the same thing; the only thing I lack is a
suitably huge CVS repository to start with -- is there any way for me
to make a local mirror of E's whole repository? Google fails me the
specific procedure...
> tmpfs,
In real life disks will be involved, it'd probably be good t
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 11:41:09AM +0300, Eugen Minciu wrote:
> I will try to benchmark cvs, subversion and git today. If this doesn't take
> me too long I might throw in Mercurial as well.
Thanks! Be sure to post the results on the web somewhere, as I'm sure
other large projects may be intereste
And what do you think about opening some mirrors ?
I know that raster enjoys knowing the numbers of people using the cvs,
etc...
Maybe, mirrors could give statistics and works togethers...
An other possibility is to make the official source's tree under cvs,
and make a git mirror, an other unde
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 00:41:34 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Exactly. Have you met anyone who uses SVN without Apache? Neither
> have I.
I'm using SVN without Apache. Your anti-SVN message is starting to
sound like it's coming from someone that hasn't actually run a SVN
ser
I will try to benchmark cvs, subversion and git today. If this doesn't take me
too long I might throw in Mercurial as well.
I'll set up a (insert one of the above SCMs) server on my desktop, with the
repository on a tmpfs, with the enlightenment repository, and I'll grab it 100
times with my la
On 8/14/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> 1. devel "cvs" server + future web server (for downloads too of official
> tarballs etc.)
> 2. an anonymous "cvs" server and possibly second download mirror.
>
> so 2 systems really.
>
> i hear that svn is significantly less load fo
On 8/14/06, Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 13:42:19 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > checkouts from svn are just ridiculous. agreed. but its the server
> > side i am asking about. as i said - i HEARD it is easier on the
> > server - i am after d
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 13:42:19 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> yeah - though that might be harder than we think. the other problem
> here is consistency - we want a user using the 1 server once they
> started as if anon servers don't update at the same time - they will
> have problems w
On 8/14/06, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
> > Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
> > in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
>
>> Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
>> in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
>> this -
>>
>> http://wiki.me
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
> in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
> this -
>
> http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
>
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 23:51:19 +0100 Shish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> > It's not true. SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
> > with SVN and DAV modules),
>
> They aren't required, they just make things easier. You can use a
> standalone svn daemon, or AFAIK have a client side cl
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006 09:01:06 +1000
David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
> in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
> this -
>
> http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
>
>
Strangely enough, another large, old open source project I am involved
in is having exactly the same conversation. One of them came up with
this -
http://wiki.metalforge.net/doku.php/user:rednaxela:scmtable
It may be helpful.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
---
> It's not true. SVN requires a lot more overhead (including Apache
> with SVN and DAV modules),
They aren't required, they just make things easier. You can use a
standalone svn daemon, or AFAIK have a client side client and server
side client who talk over SSH (similar to rsync's two-client mode
Eugen Minciu [2006-08-14 15:29]:
> Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
> >
> > yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are monsters! :(
> >
> > anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while
The reason I wanted to go the CVS way was so that we could avoid the
importing hell you generally go through when switching systems (both
on the server side and the client side).
On that side I found DCVS: http://www.elego-software-solutions.com/dcvs/
On the other hand, I've been staring at that g
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
>
> yes - we are becoming a burden on yet more cvs servers. we are monsters! :(
>
> anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but we are
> killing it (sorry kainx!)
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:20:09 +0200 Stephan Wezel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Am Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400
> schrieb Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> > Carsten Haitzler wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400
schrieb Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
> > we are killing
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:18:40 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 14:11:00 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> babbled:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mo
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 15:00:46 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > babbled:
> >
> > > On Monday, 14 Augus
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:42:19 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> babbled:
>
> > On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> > Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> >
> > It's not true. SVN require
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 12:03:07AM -0400, Michael Jennings wrote:
> On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> > i hear that svn is significantly less load for anonymous access -
> > even developer - who has experience with this server-side? can you
> > confirm or
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 00:03:07 -0400 Michael Jennings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
> Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
> > we are killing it (sorry kainx!)
> >
> > so its time to finall
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 13:59:58 +1000 David Seikel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 12:08:06 +0900 Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > It has come to my attention that yet again we are killing systems.
> >
> > yes - we are becoming a burden on y
On Monday, 14 August 2006, at 12:08:06 (+0900),
Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> anyway - we have been living on caosity's cvs for a while now - but
> we are killing it (sorry kainx!)
>
> so its time to finally bite the bullet and dredge up the issue of us
> needing servers again.
What we really need is
1 - 100 of 102 matches
Mail list logo
