Re: switching to git

[Jim Meyering]

Bruno Haible <address@hidden> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> A good argument for upgrading any cvs servers you control.
>
> Unfortunately, it's the clients that you would need to upgrade - it's the
> GPLed 'cvs' client which pushes the load to the cvs server. And the client
> that has this behaviour fixed is not free software.
>
>> If no one objects to dropping CVS support, I'll be happy to switch now.
>
> Yes, please. Doing this will help
>   - people with a modem or DSL connection,
>   - doing renames,
>   - keeping the ChangeLog a single piece,
>   - maintaining forked copies of gnulib,
>   - determining the checkout identification (requested by Eric a few days 
> ago).
>
>> But that would require a certain amount of hand-holding and updating
>> FAQ/etc. telling people how to use git enough to "pull" (aka update),
>> and how to prepare patches properly (which means explaining the basics of
>> git topic branches), etc.
>
> Yes, and I'm willing to help on it. Find attached already the doc patches.
> It's a time well invested, since the design of cvs is based on network/disk
> tradeoffs that are not correct any more with today's hardware.
>
>> The desire to retain CVS access (e.g., for Karl :-), and the fact that it
>> will have to be via git-cvsserver to provide at least read-only pserver
>> access, means I'll have to exercise a certain amount of due diligence,
>> too.  I'll have to set up something separate, test it, and then, once
>> confident everything works the way we want, choose a nonstandard port
>> on sv.gnu.org for use as the git-pserver port and set it up there.
>> (the pserver port is already in use, of course).
>
> Yes, please!! I can help updating the docs afterwards.

Thanks for volunteering.
Let's give people a few days to speak up.
If we can agree to switch to git, I'll do my part.

I hope you can be patient for a little while longer.
I'm going to be on a weird schedule for the next
3 weeks, with less frequent net access than normal.