From: Vladimir Prus (ghost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-01 01:03:20
Doug Gregor wrote:
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Vladimir Prus wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>>> I did try this, without success. Also, note that only few files in
>>>> have watches on them, so this should not matter either.
>>>> But, I recall there were plans to switch to Subversion, which does
>>>> have such problems (in addition to being vastly better that CVS in
>>>> respect). What happened to those plans?
>>> Definitely on hold until after 1.33.1
>> Do you mean that the switch won't happen until then, or that no work
>> will be
>> done until then. Some things like installing server are rather
>> If that done, given that CVS->SVN was successfully done in past,
>> switch will
>> require just a day to convert current state and load it into the
> I think I somehow ended up as the person to handle the switchover,
> which means that *nothing* will happen until after 1.33.1 because I'm
> way too overloaded.
Ok, I see.
> What needs to happen? Several things:
> - Decide how to layout the SVN repository
Well, I though that's pretty standard ("/trunk + /branches + /tag"), but you
> - Decide if we should use the fine-grained access controls Subversion
> allows, and who gets what kind of access
Why bother? You can retroactively restrict access for anybody.
> - Decide if we should jettison some old junk (long-dead branches,
> etc.) from CVS, and what that junk is
Why bother? This can be done after conversion.
> - Update the various web pages and HOWTOs to reference Subversion,
> tools such as TortoiseSVN, etc.
Ah.. that's some work indeed.
> OSL is willing to host the Boost Subversion repository. We already have
> a Subversion server for all of our internal projects and all of the
> computing power and bandwidth that we would need.
Good to hear!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk