On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 02:50:39PM -0600, Adam Fedor wrote: > On 2005-10-18 18:36:23 -0600 Andrew Ruder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>* Gna.org's hosting service has been nixed more or less by most. I > > don't think that this is worth pursuing because of the overall > > negative response. > > I've think I've forgotten - why was gna.org nixed? The reason I ask is > that I talked to RMS and surprisingly, he's not opposed to us moving > the repository if we really want to, although he would prefer us going > to gna.org. He does not like sourceware.org
People were rather hesitant to move off of savannah. As this may not be a problem with RMS, perhaps gna.org would be the way to go. > We should also talk about all the implications this might involve. For > instance, the current CVS archive at savannah will still be there, so > we have to inform people about that. Perhaps we can have the savannah folks disable it? > Plus we can't say, 'just update from CVS' to everyone who has a > problem anymore. Most people won't have svn, even if they knew how to > do that stuff. We need to update things like the daily snapshots. Well, gna.org does have daily snapshots, we will probably have to work out what they are taking snapshots of with them. Subversion is becoming more and more standard in distributions. Most modern linux distributions will either have it included or easily available, I believe. > I wonder if we could still mirror the repository on CVS? Either at gna > or savannah. Even if it is read-only. Is there any reason to keep the CVS access? Ideally we should just move full over. If there are some people that don't like it, tough. They can adjust ;) For the most part, snapshots should fulfill the task of telling people to upgrade to the latest if they really can't install subversion. The idea of source-code management is to make life easy for -developers-, users should just be waiting for the release or they can accept that they may need to compile an additional tool (svn). > I'm still not sure I want to leave savannah, but they're so > understaffed, it seems like it could be a long long time before they > have a useful system working. Is there anything in particular keeping you at savannah? The way I see it, if savannah is unable to keep up with changing times and there is another FSF ran service that can, there's really no reason to feel like we must stay with savannah. Of course, maybe there are other reasons as well... In other news, when we want to make the transition, give me a holler, I'll grab the latest cvs backup, and handle the conversion. It takes a few hours to do something as large as gnustep with full history and the dumpfile will be around ~60 megs gzipped so it may need to be coordinated with the gna.org people somewhat and make sure they realize that we've got something this big to start with (and it'll probably take them a while to get the actual svn repos up and going from the dumpfile). If we decide to make the move, I can contact the gna.org people. I was thinking some sort of layout like: /libs/base/{trunk,tags,branches} /libs/gui/{trunk,tags,branches} /libs/Renaissance/{trunk,tags,branches} /apps/Gorm/{trunk,tags,branches} /apps/gworkspace/{trunk,tags,branches} and so on. We could then have something like: /modules/dev-apps /modules/core /modules/dev-libs which would actually pull in the trunk from all the other locations. (Using svn:externals) That way -base is in its own hierarchy, but you can easily pull in /modules/core and get something similar to pulling the core directory in cvs. Also, perhaps something like: /developer/<username> for anyone that would like a place to experiment... I'm fully in support of this move, and I think it would really aid development ease and speed (after some initial adjustment). - Andy -- Andrew Ruder http://www.aeruder.net _______________________________________________ Gnustep-dev mailing list Gnustep-dev@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev