Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
Glen Mazza wrote: Noted. My instinct would be for us to wait about 6-9 months after several other projects move over. If no problems with them, or at least no major problems, then I think it would be fine for us to switch products if other committers would like. However, this will still require someone SVN-loving enough to do the heavy lifting of migrating our source code over. CVS is still quite fine with me, so I'm not motivated enough to bother with migrating it. I'm in agreement with you Glen. I'm not motivated to do the migratation and relearn tools, etc. Lets wait and see how many other projects migrate. Chris
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
Subversion is an effort to improve upon CVS in a number of areas. One such area is revision control. Subversion remembers which changed files were committed in a single commit transaction. These change sets can be viewed later, and reverted. Subversion has strong migration utilities from CVS. I migrated some of my own projects without problems. Addmittedly they are small. By now the ASF must have collected much experience with such migrations. CVS is the work horse of Open Source. I think it is a good thing to take part in its innovation in the form of Subversion. I am in favour of moving to Subversion at some time in the not too distant future. Regards, Simon On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 12:28:42PM +0100, Chris Bowditch wrote: Glen Mazza wrote: Noted. My instinct would be for us to wait about 6-9 months after several other projects move over. If no problems with them, or at least no major problems, then I think it would be fine for us to switch products if other committers would like. However, this will still require someone SVN-loving enough to do the heavy lifting of migrating our source code over. CVS is still quite fine with me, so I'm not motivated enough to bother with migrating it. I'm in agreement with you Glen. I'm not motivated to do the migratation and relearn tools, etc. Lets wait and see how many other projects migrate. Chris -- Simon Pepping home page: http://www.leverkruid.nl
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
--- Simon Pepping [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Subversion has strong migration utilities from CVS. I migrated some of my own projects without problems. Addmittedly they are small. By now the ASF must have collected much experience with such migrations. I think it's just been a few projects right now. I've only heard Forrest switching ATM. Hopefully, there will be no heavy lifting needed for a switch though--we can just give Infrastructure the word to switch and it's done. CVS is the work horse of Open Source. I think it is a good thing to take part in its innovation in the form of Subversion. Apparently so...I checked the cvshome.org site and they even have advertisements for SVN (lower left corner) on their home page. I am in favour of moving to Subversion at some time in the not too distant future. Noted again. These endorsements do help in deciding whether to switch. 6-9 months (my previous guess) is probably too much time, but let's wait about three or four and see what happens. (It's not just SVN, maybe the new servers they have for it are clunky, etc. Time is good for these things to iron out.) If only two or three are switching, I would be leery against it. If it's half of Apache by then, let's do so. Thanks, Glen
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
I use SVN at home and at work. With great success. Command line works great and is very easy and intuitive. TortoiseSVN (Explorer Plug-In for Windows) is also quite nice although on some not quite ordinary operations the thingy seems to do a few things wrong messing up the local working copy from time to time. But that's easily fixed. Even branching is not scary anymore. :-) On 12.06.2004 00:28:58 Clay Leeds wrote: A very interesting read! Looks like a really nice tool. We may consider it ourselves in-house, as the infrastructure has some really nice features! Jeremias Maerki
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
Jeremias Maerki said: I use SVN at home and at work. With great success. Command line works great and is very easy and intuitive. TortoiseSVN (Explorer Plug-In for Windows) is also quite nice although on some not quite ordinary operations the thingy seems to do a few things wrong messing up the local working copy from time to time. But that's easily fixed. Even branching is not scary anymore. :-) Jeremias Maerki We use TortoiseCVS at work, and it's bitchin! Iwish there were a Mac OS X version! I would assume that TortoiseSVN would be similarly cool. For Mac OS X I use MacCVSClientX, which works pretty well. -- Clay Leeds - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web Developer - Medata, Inc. - http://www.medata.com PGP Public Key: https://mail.medata.com/pgp/cleeds.asc
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
Noted. My instinct would be for us to wait about 6-9 months after several other projects move over. If no problems with them, or at least no major problems, then I think it would be fine for us to switch products if other committers would like. However, this will still require someone SVN-loving enough to do the heavy lifting of migrating our source code over. CVS is still quite fine with me, so I'm not motivated enough to bother with migrating it. Glen --- Jeremias Maerki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I use SVN at home and at work. With great success. Command line works great and is very easy and intuitive. TortoiseSVN (Explorer Plug-In for Windows) is also quite nice although on some not quite ordinary operations the thingy seems to do a few things wrong messing up the local working copy from time to time. But that's easily fixed. Even branching is not scary anymore. :-) On 12.06.2004 00:28:58 Clay Leeds wrote: A very interesting read! Looks like a really nice tool. We may consider it ourselves in-house, as the infrastructure has some really nice features! Jeremias Maerki
[Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
Original Message Subject: CVS and Subversion Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:17:27 +0200 From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Apache Infrastructure [EMAIL PROTECTED] In reaction to some worried emails related to some projects moving from CVS to Subversion. - Do not panic. - There is no ASF driven push (yet) for this move, no deadlines, no forcing. - It is you, the developers yourself, in each project who decide for -yourself- when and if it is time to go to Subversion - just let infrastructure know and they'll help you with the transition. - But I urge you to give it a look - it is a darn cool piece of technology; and it integrates very nicely with other tools. And although it is true that Subversion is young and has a serious footprint - it does have one important feature for projects like the ASF: it no longer requires user accounts in order to do commits. So in theory it is easier to secure a box and guard against changes under the hood; i.e. done to the repository directly. And thus tamper with our record of history - as right now developers -must- have r/w access to disk with the repository itself on the CVS machine. With about a thousand committers using several thousands of machines back home and a ssh/password based access controls it is a given that things leak over time. And one leak is quite enough. Thus reducing history/repository access alone is something the ASF as the legal steward of the code cares about a lot. (Those who where around a few years back during the last compromise of the CVS machine may recall the countless hours of work when we had to pour over the CVS records and backups to certify each and every file). It also means that subversion is easier to sandbox - thus further minimizing the damage from 'real' exploits. So all in all - it is a step forward; but yes a relatively young step - and that is why we are not yet making this an ASF wide compulsory change. Secondly Ben Laurie/infrastructure is working on a ASF wide Certificate Authority in the Bunker.co.uk using a machine specially donated by Ironsystems.com/Cliff Skolnick. Once that is in place we've added an other much needed layer which allows us to continue to scale in numbers of developers without suddenly needing a dozen full time sysadmins :) and it allows us to decrease the sensitive information, like password files, which need to be managed on a daily basis by multiple people on the machines even more. And ultimately it means that it becomes more and more possible to rely less on a 'unix root' admin - and means that we can handle the mutations from the then several thousands of commtiters on a timely basis. So in sort - and to stress: there are no deadlines, pushing or sticks to get projects to move from CVS to Subversion. Just the above carrots. But unless the early projects hit some major snags with subversion - DO expect the ASF to move there in the next two or three years - to allow us to continue to scale the infrastructure along with the number of developers and their demands while being good stewards to our code heritage at the same time On a positive note; do look at subversion; play with it - and note that its modern infrastructure and standard based protocols do allow for levels of integration previously hard to attain. Thanks, Dw, -- Dirk-Willem van Gulik, President of the Apache Software Foundation. -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
Re: [Fwd: CVS and Subversion]
A very interesting read! Looks like a really nice tool. We may consider it ourselves in-house, as the infrastructure has some really nice features! Thanks for the heads up! Web Maestro Clay On Jun 11, 2004, at 3:05 PM, Peter B. West wrote: Original Message Subject: CVS and Subversion Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 12:17:27 +0200 From: Dirk-Willem van Gulik [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] CC: Apache Infrastructure [EMAIL PROTECTED] In reaction to some worried emails related to some projects moving from CVS to Subversion. - Do not panic. - There is no ASF driven push (yet) for this move, no deadlines, no forcing. - It is you, the developers yourself, in each project who decide for -yourself- when and if it is time to go to Subversion - just let infrastructure know and they'll help you with the transition. - But I urge you to give it a look - it is a darn cool piece of technology; and it integrates very nicely with other tools. And although it is true that Subversion is young and has a serious footprint - it does have one important feature for projects like the ASF: it no longer requires user accounts in order to do commits. So in theory it is easier to secure a box and guard against changes under the hood; i.e. done to the repository directly. And thus tamper with our record of history - as right now developers -must- have r/w access to disk with the repository itself on the CVS machine. With about a thousand committers using several thousands of machines back home and a ssh/password based access controls it is a given that things leak over time. And one leak is quite enough. Thus reducing history/repository access alone is something the ASF as the legal steward of the code cares about a lot. (Those who where around a few years back during the last compromise of the CVS machine may recall the countless hours of work when we had to pour over the CVS records and backups to certify each and every file). It also means that subversion is easier to sandbox - thus further minimizing the damage from 'real' exploits. So all in all - it is a step forward; but yes a relatively young step - and that is why we are not yet making this an ASF wide compulsory change. Secondly Ben Laurie/infrastructure is working on a ASF wide Certificate Authority in the Bunker.co.uk using a machine specially donated by Ironsystems.com/Cliff Skolnick. Once that is in place we've added an other much needed layer which allows us to continue to scale in numbers of developers without suddenly needing a dozen full time sysadmins :) and it allows us to decrease the sensitive information, like password files, which need to be managed on a daily basis by multiple people on the machines even more. And ultimately it means that it becomes more and more possible to rely less on a 'unix root' admin - and means that we can handle the mutations from the then several thousands of commtiters on a timely basis. So in sort - and to stress: there are no deadlines, pushing or sticks to get projects to move from CVS to Subversion. Just the above carrots. But unless the early projects hit some major snags with subversion - DO expect the ASF to move there in the next two or three years - to allow us to continue to scale the infrastructure along with the number of developers and their demands while being good stewards to our code heritage at the same time On a positive note; do look at subversion; play with it - and note that its modern infrastructure and standard based protocols do allow for levels of integration previously hard to attain. Thanks, Dw, -- Dirk-Willem van Gulik, President of the Apache Software Foundation. -- Peter B. West http://www.powerup.com.au/~pbwest/resume.html
