Mark de Wever <[email protected]>: > > On the other hand, one of the things that experience tells me is that > > a Wesnoth migration would be a huge, messy project. The sheer size > > of the repo would produce a scale problem in itself - a full download of > > all branches runs my development machine out of disk space! > > I assume that is before you do a git repacking operation. Our git-svn > repo is less than 2 GB and AFAIK only misses the website branch.
I was talking about a svn download. :-) > > This doesn't mean it can't be done. It does mean it can't be done > > *quickly*. But we probably want to wait until I ship reposurgeon 2.0 > > anyway; I'm still chasing some bugs in the svn support. > > Haven't looked at reposurgeon yet, but if that tool can make it easier > the better :-) reposurgeon is a repository surgery tool; one of its main uses is for high-quality repository conversions. See http://catb.org/~esr/reposurgeon/ The 2.x version will have direct support for reading (though not writing) Subversion repos. Already, even with its known bugs, it's the best svn-to-git converter in existence - because it's the only one that can handle mixed-branch commits. > > However, I think we should probably begin preparing for a move. Gna > > is understaffed and undermaintained, and the Gna codebase is creaking > > and old. I would feel much more secure if the repo were migrated to > > somewhere like github or gitorious. > > Thanks for confirming my suspicion about GNA. At the FOSDEM we mainly > considering Github and Sourceforge. Reasonable. -- <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a> _______________________________________________ Wesnoth-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/wesnoth-dev
