> > Ken Fuchs wrote: > >> 8) U-Boot now has architecture specific git repositories for > >> active development available via http protocol that passes > >> through most firewalls transparently. coreboot has a > >> single SVN repository that seems to be accessible only > >> via the svn protocol which requires that the svn port > >> be open on the firewall which is often impossible to get > >> approved, since it is a "non-standard" port.
> ron minnich schrieb: > > ah, git. Love it or hate it. I know people who have used it and now > > stopped. We had a truly terrible experience with LB and arch years > > ago, and the SCM question is a sensitive one. I have had people tell > > me "move to git" and others tell me "please please DON'T > > EVER MOVE TO > > GIT". Patrick Georgi wrote: > I think, the main request here is to have the repo available over a > "standard port" (yay, it's PHBs and BOFHs ruining the party again). > > We already provide the cbv2 repo over https (as documented on > http://www.coreboot.org/Download_coreboot ), and it should be easy to > provide the other repos as well. It should be easy to map > them into the > http namespace on coreboot.org, if that's truly necessary. Yes, all source available from the Subversion repository via http/https is what I'm mainly looking for. Read only access would allow update of a developer's current tree. I actually advocated Subversion when arch was chosen a few years ago. Subversion is a good SCM, but a lot of open source projects have moved to git. However, if Subversion is adequate, I see no pressing reason to switch to git. There are some nice tools to track source code at a high level via git though. Sincerely, Ken Fuchs -- coreboot mailing list [email protected] http://www.coreboot.org/mailman/listinfo/coreboot
