[boost] re: Moving from CVS to Subversion? (was: Checking out latest...

From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-01 07:03:13

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 11:17:21 -0500, David Abrahams wrote

> I'm all for being methodical, but honestly if boost development 
> ground to a halt for a couple of days I think we'd survive.

Sure, but what if the new environment is actually worse in some significant
way? (yes, more FUD from a fuddy duddy). But the fact is, there won't be any
going back to CVS once we are converted. 
 
> > my view.  Since we moved the mailing lists there have been issues
> > that never got resolved -- specifically, the archive seems to lose
> > messages or get stuck 
> 
> That archiving software ** sucks **.  Subversion is, in my 
> experience, much better engineered.

Fair enough.  Why did we choose it?  How come we didn't test it before
changing?  Seems like we have the same level of process in this new selection...
 
> > Maybe we need to have a coordinated test where we all agree to pull down the
> > whole repository at a certain time -- just to make sure the
> > machines/network/software is really up to the task?  
> 
> That's a bad test IMO.  If we all hit CVS at the same time, how good
> do you think the response time will be?

I don't know what the response would be with CVS and it doesn't matter.  My
point was that CVS/Sourceforge has been mostly handling whatever the
concurrent load is today.  Yes, there's a stuck lock, slow updates for some,
but most of the time it works (what exactly was the CVS issue list driving
this, because I can't really recall any discussion on the list about CVS
disatisfaction?).

What little I know about sourceforge is they replicate CVS across servers to
support anonymous access, have big network connections, etc.  If we knew what
the average and peak load on the repository was we could easily test that out
that subversion/OSL would meet our needs.  But since we don't know I was just
suggesting a test that would give us information.  If 10 people can't operate
on the respository at the same time then I'd be worried about converting.  
 
> > Maybe there are other tests we should do before jumping ship?
> 
> Name 'em and we can consider them.  Otherwise it's just FUD.

Well I guess it's all just total FUD since you already decided the one test I
suggested to see if subversion can handle load is a bad idea.  No sense in
testing anything, I guess nothing can go wrong...

> > One last question, how much of our version history will we lose?
> 
> None.
> 
> > Will be still be able to pull the 1.32 branch out of subversion
> 
> Yes.

Great -- there's 2 tests we can do once the repository is converted.

> OSL has already done several conversions; it's not that complicated.

Well then it shouldn't be a big deal to put up a converted test repository for
us to play with.

Since this has apparently already been decided and no actual testing is
required to make sure the new environment will be better -- resolving an
unspecified set of issues with the current environment -- I suggest we get on
with the work of conversion immediately:

-- changing all the boost web pages that talk about CVS
-- telling all the users to download and learn subversion clients
-- creating SSL accounts (or whatever) at OSL for all boost developers
-- setup anonymous access to the repository
-- converting the repository
-- getting regression testing switched over

Since this will cost 'almost nothing' in time and energy from the boost
community lets draw up a time table and move on.

Jeff

ps: And in case you didn't catch it in the tone, the last 2 paragraphs are
drenched in sarcasm...