From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 9 11:59:13 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 48BDD106566B; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:59:13 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gavin.atkinson@ury.york.ac.uk) Received: from ixe-mta-27.emailfiltering.com (ixe-mta-27-tx.emailfiltering.com [194.116.199.158]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3E98FC08; Sun, 9 Oct 2011 11:59:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-gw5.york.ac.uk ([144.32.129.29]) by ixe-mta-27.emailfiltering.com with emfmta (version 4.8.3.54) by TLS id 1319759538 for dougb@FreeBSD.org; cfc46d22748a0c7d; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:59:10 +0100 Received: from ury.york.ac.uk ([144.32.108.81]:58169) by mail-gw5.york.ac.uk with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RCs2A-0005Rl-4E; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:59:10 +0100 Received: from gavin (helo=localhost) by ury.york.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RCs29-0004x8-V6; Sun, 09 Oct 2011 12:59:09 +0100 Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2011 12:59:09 +0100 (BST) From: Gavin Atkinson X-X-Sender: gavin@ury.york.ac.uk To: Doug Barton In-Reply-To: <4E8F8873.4030006@FreeBSD.org> Message-ID: References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <4E8F0AA2.3020704@freebsd.org> <4E8F8873.4030006@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Cc: doceng@FreeBSD.org, Rene Ladan , doc@FreeBSD.org, =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ulrich_Sp=F6rlein?= 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: Sun, 09 Oct 2011 11:59:13 -0000 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. Gavin