Mailing-List: contact security-dev-help@xml.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <430AF27B.80303@wingsofhermes.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:55:07 +1000
From: Berin Lautenbach <berin@wingsofhermes.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
 rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040910
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: security-dev@xml.apache.org
Subject: Re: SVN
References: <16E2027582CDB74180896CDB4B8CC1F9F155C4@PKCVT01.pkc.com>
 <19e0530f050822052563f9fc75@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <19e0530f050822052563f9fc75@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Davanum Srinivas wrote:
> Jesse,
> 
> FYI, There is a informal deadline for shutting down CVS end of this
> calendar year. drop a note to infrastructure@ if you need more info
> and timeline.
> 
> -- dims

As I understand it, one of the main drivers is that SVN allows a couple 
of cool things from an infrastructure perspective that are more 
difficult with CVS.  In particular (and the main one that I know of) we 
can give people write access to SVN repos without also giving them a 
logon to the machines on which those repos exist.

I have write access to a number of CVS and SVN modules.  I must admit 
I've not found anything better between one or 'tother in my developer 
life, but then I've never been very adventurous with source management, 
so maybe there is something there :>.

The main reason for asking the question is I know that the ASF does want 
to move down that path, and it *is* a good idea from an infra perspective.

Cheers,
	Berin