www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Menard <nirvd...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: git.apache.org commit histories being remapped
Date Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:27:52 GMT
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Grzegorz Kossakowski
<gkossakowski@apache.org> wrote:

> I didn't understand that last question but I did understand rest of this paragraph so
I guess I can answer it meaningfully.
> My answer is: you as mirror user don't have to care from which svn server we are pulling.
You can configure your git svn
> instance to use whatever server you prefer. Have a look at rewriteRoot option for git

Well, that's not 100% true.  I need to care because I need to take an
extra step in order to make the git clone work in a
non-pain-in-the-neck way.  The same could be said about me not having
to care about the SVN history showing the EU server.  Whatever is
being done on git.apache.org I could do locally, no doubt.  What I'd
like to see in any non-essential steps eliminated.  If every developer
is going to have to reconfigure every clone to use the primary SVN
server, I'd just assume see that configured in the mirror anyway.

So, I suppose this comes back to the question of load on the primary
SVN server.  Let's state from the outset that an initial import is
costly and as such should be done from the EU mirror.  So, the
question is whether updates are that costly.  If they're the
equivalent of an "svn up," the updates shouldn't induce more load than
a developer causes locally.  If they're more costly, then so be it.
But, if those updates are acceptable for an individual developer to do
with his clone that is reconfigured for the primary SVN server, I
still don't see why this couldn't be done on git.apache.org.  So, I
guess I don't see why after initial import, we couldn't have the bare
repos set up for the primary SVN server.


View raw message