From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-04 02:31:44
Jeff Garland wrote:
>> > One possibility would be to have OSL just host a CVS server,
>> > and see whether that clears up most of the problems.
> It's an interesting suggestion to try out CVS at OSL -- it would carry far
> less risk and could serve as a stepping stone to SVN at OSL. It would be
> easy to go back if it went wrong.
I doubt that CVS at OSL will bring more benefit that CVS at SF. We might get
more performance, but SF's performance is not so bad for me.
>> It's not like it's a gratuitous switch with no obvious benefits.
>> I think anybody who's taken a look at SVN can see that there are
>> definitely improvements over CVS.
> While I agree there are likely benefits, it doesn't come without
> significant cost and risk that isn't really focused on our main mission
> (see my other posts).
> We have 86 'committers' listed on the SF page and we've really only heard
> opinions of a few -- mostly me and Dave. I'm certain that it's time for
> me to shut up now and listen to others ;-)
I'd like Subversion, for sure. When we wanted move Boost.Build V1 and V2 to
different directories, this was nontrivial -- including writing some script
and passing a request to SF staff. And I'd like to move some more files...
I think the only problematic part could be CVS -> SVN conversion script. If
the scripts runs OK and we verify the converted repository, there should be
no problems. I was using Subversion for more that year (Apache + Berkeley
DB) and there were no problems.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk