From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Oct 8 10:21:01 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: doc@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB59106566B; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:21:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from simon@nitro.dk) Received: from emx.nitro.dk (emx.nitro.dk [IPv6:2a01:4f8:120:7384::102]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62A9B8FC0C; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:21:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mailscan.leto.nitro.dk (mailscan.leto.nitro.dk [127.0.1.4]) by emx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5403411AED7; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:21:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from emx.nitro.dk ([127.0.1.2]) by mailscan.leto.nitro.dk (mailscan.leto.nitro.dk [127.0.1.4]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id kc7yyjQxrzrH; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.4.21] (unknown [188.141.45.153]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by emx.nitro.dk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76AF611AED0; Sat, 8 Oct 2011 10:20:54 +0000 (UTC) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1244.3) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 From: "Simon L. B. Nielsen" In-Reply-To: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 11:20:53 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <12F4B555-D14F-492C-9AC7-669BA33A0AF6@nitro.dk> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ulrich_Sp=F6rlein?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1244.3) Cc: doceng@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Conversion to SVN X-BeenThere: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Documentation project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 08 Oct 2011 10:21:01 -0000 On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote: > What I, personally, would like to see is us using the same svn repo as > src. That means we would have to stop svn.freebsd.org for the > conversion, turn off email sending, dump 50k revisions into it (under > /doc and /www perhaps? where should branches/tags end up?), then turn > everything back on. The advantages of having one repo need to be significant as the = disadvantages are certainly there. For svn to perform in the current = setup all of the repo basically need to fit into RAM - one large repo = makes this harder as we can't split on multiple servers as needed later. Also, please think of ports - I really doubt src and ports will fit into = same repo nicely... I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo... = head/ etc. is on the top level. --=20 Simon L. B. Nielsen