Re: Repository change to SVN, Jan 28th

[Fred Kiefer]

Dear Riccardo,

Riccardo wrote:

> On Saturday, January 21, 2006, at 03:47 PM, Fred Kiefer wrote:
> 
>> I am a bit puzzled by this fast transission over to SVN. Looks like
>> everybody wants to take place, or at least does not oppose it. Still we
>> should make sure that now that we doing it, it does not interrupt the
>> GNUstep development to much. For this I would like to see a transission
>> periode, where the offical GNUstep code is still in CVS, but there is
>> the same code in SVN to play with. Every GNUstep developer should do a
>> few test updates during that time and we do the actual move, when we all
>> feel comfortable with SVN. (I know I should have been practising myself
>> already, but I didn't)
>>
> 
> Untrue! I would prefer keeping CVS and don't bother about CVS. However I
> find such a transition period dangerous and difficult to manage, so a
> "instantaneous" switch is the best thing imho. A CVS mirror out of the
> SVN should be created at the same time so anonymous check-out can
> continue "as usual".
> 

Could you please explain the word "untrue"? I was mostly stating what I
think should happen. Now untrue in that sense could only mean that you
don't think that I want what I state. That is strange.

Now, if you don't agree on what I think this is completly exceptable to
me. Here the reason may be that I did not express myself clear enough.

What I suggested, is a period, where all the code is available in SVN
for everybody to play around and familiarize with. All changes in SVN
will be thrown away later on. During that time changes may still be done
in CVS. At the end of the periode the SVN repository gets replaced with
a new extract from CVS and CVS will become a read only system.
The benefit of this approach would be that any problems we uncover in
our SVN setup, wont stop the GNUstep development until they get
resolved. They will just extend the transition period. My initial
suggestion for the lenght of this period would be two weeks. And only if
somebody has actual problems, we would discuss about enlarging that time.

The only drawback I see is that the transfer of the repository needs to
be done twice. I don't see anything that might be "dangerous or
difficult" with this approach.

Fred