Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:59:09 +0100 (BST) From: Gavin Atkinson <gavin@FreeBSD.org> To: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doceng@FreeBSD.org, Rene Ladan <rene@freebsd.org>, doc@FreeBSD.org, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ulrich_Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Conversion to SVN Message-ID: <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110091251010.17907@ury.york.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4E8F8873.4030006@FreeBSD.org> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <4E8F0AA2.3020704@freebsd.org> <alpine.LNX.2.00.1110072203320.17415@ury.york.ac.uk> <4E8F8873.4030006@FreeBSD.org>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Doug Barton wrote: > On 10/07/2011 14:15, Gavin Atkinson wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, Rene Ladan wrote: > >> Op 07-10-2011 16:13, Ulrich Sp?rlein schreef: > >>> it looks like I'm not the only one thinking about moving the doc/www > >>> repos from CVS to SVN, and other people actually have not only thought > >>> about it but already played around with conversions. > >>> > >>> gavin did some preliminary conversions and it turns out that we end up > >>> with ~50k revisions and about 650MB of changes (IIRC). There are also > >>> lots of weird branches, so perhaps we could size that down a bit. > >>> > >>> 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 more I think about this, the less I like the idea. I really don't > > like the idea of having revision numbers which no longer increase with > > commit date (i.e. having revisions 1-250,000 correspond to the existing > > src tree, 250,000-300,000 being the imported doc tree, and then the > > combined repo being 300,001 onwards). > > I'm sorry, I don't understand your concern here. The commit ids > increment monotonically in svn, and the number is global to the whole > repo. Given that the individual files won't be increasing to a > deterministic value, I don't understand why we care what the actual > number is. I don't like the idea that r226166 can be a change from 10 minutes ago, and r226167 would be a change from 1994. > I'm still not sure I understand this, sorry. :) > > > Combining doc and www more closely, however, I do see the benefit of. > > However, currently we don't (and have no need to) branch the www tree with > > each release. If we combine them, we would be - even though we probably > > don't wish to. > > I think we should give more thought to the structure. I'd like to see > one doc/ directory, with what's in doc and www now both. But we may need > to think harder about what parts we may want to branch, and what parts > we don't. Given that moving directories is a cheap process in SVN, I'm tending towards feeling that rearranging the repo can be done after the conversion, and not necessarily during. > > It may actually be easier, as all the infrastructure from the src repo can > > possibly be reused easily. Combining them may be harder as more work > > would presumably need to be done on sorting out ACLs for src and doc > > committers, etc? > > Effectively the administrative separation that we have now is on the > honor system, and it's worked well ever since we branched the original > CVS repository. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't continue to work. Indeed, but we still maintain a nominal distinction between src, doc and ports committers, meaning that when somebody commits to a different repository this gets flagged in the commit message. I'm working on the assumption that the distinction between different commit bits will remain. Gavinhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.LNX.2.00.1110091251010.17907>