www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Labnotes <as...@labnotes.org>
Subject Re: Writable git repositories
Date Sat, 10 Oct 2009 04:25:05 GMT

On Oct 9, 2009, at 6:29 AM, Tony Stevenson <tony@pc-tony.com> wrote:

> On 9 Oct 2009, at 14:14, Kevin Menard wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:43 AM, Tony Stevenson <tony@pc-tony.com>  
>> wrote:
>>> Honestly, right now, none.  We only support SVN as the canonical  
>>> VCS in use
>>> at the ASF.  If you want to use git-svn, then I'm sorry you'll  
>>> need to work
>>> around the mirroring lag.
>> Hi Tony,
>> Thanks for the response.
>> So, the way I've worked around on the mirroring lag is largely to not
>> commit anything unless I have 15 min. to sit around and go through a
>> dcommit/rebase cycle.  Which means I only begrudgingly push stuff
>> maybe once a week.  The way I've worked around the remote branch  
>> issue
>> is to push the code to a non-ASF repo and then bring it back into
>> trunk when I can get to the git-svn loop.
>> Either behavior should probably be considered unacceptable for an ASF
>> committer and it's not something I'm proud of doing.  But, that's the
>> reality of the situation.
>> By the time I got involved with the ASF, everything had been migrated
>> over to SVN already, so I didn't get to see the process for that VCS
>> migration.  I have seen various discussion over the past few years on
>> the community list about supporting other systems, but no formal
>> movement to do so.  So, what's the appropriate way to lobby for
>> supporting additional VCSs?  Obviously what I'd like to do is  
>> strike a
>> balance between having the best tools available for a team while not
>> being a resource drain on the infrastructure team.
> Kevin,  many folks have already tried to strike up the band, and see  
> if they can introduce another VCS, predominantly git.  However we,  
> in the infra team, only want to support on canonical VCS system, at  
> the moment that is SVN.  The last migration from CVS to SVN was  
> before my time, but from what I have heard it wasn't without it it's  
> problems.

My experience is limited, but the few CVS to SVN conversions I did  
were tremendously harder than SVN to Git. Hosting SVN was also more  
admin/IO intensive than Git.

I don't see how past experience with SVN is any indicator of future  
life with Git.


> In all honesty I cannot see a move away from subversion anytime  
> soon.  If you look at the roadmap for subversion, some of the sought  
> after features are penned for inclusion.
> If you use git-svn, you should avoid pointing it as the EU mirror,  
> as this has to proxy your commit back to the US, then this is  
> replayed back to the EU mirror this is why you see errors, try  
> pointing your repo check out at https://svn-master to avoid  
> succumbing to this issue.
> Cheers,
> Tony
> --------------------------------------------
> Tony Stevenson
> tony@pc-tony.com - pctony@apache.org
> pctony@freenode.net - tony@caret.cam.ac.uk
> http://blog.pc-tony.com
> 1024D/51047D66
> --------------------------------------------

View raw message