From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 3 18:17:09 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DAB3D1065675 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: from mail2.fluidhosting.com (mx24.fluidhosting.com [204.14.89.7]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 877F38FC1C for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 18:17:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from dougb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 12724 invoked by uid 399); 3 Jun 2008 18:03:27 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO lap.dougb.net) (dougb@dougbarton.us@127.0.0.1) by localhost with ESMTPAM; 3 Jun 2008 18:03:27 -0000 X-Originating-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-Sender: dougb@dougbarton.us Message-ID: <4845845D.1090808@FreeBSD.org> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:50:21 -0700 From: Doug Barton Organization: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080525) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: current@freebsd.org References: <20080603164503.GC1592@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20080603164503.GC1592@roadrunner.spoerlein.net> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 OpenPGP: id=D5B2F0FB Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Subject: Re: Subversion documentation for the FreeBSD project? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 18:17:10 -0000 Please note that I'm not in charge of this project, but I can pass on a bit of what has been discussed so far. Ulrich Spoerlein wrote: > Hi all, > > seems like I totally missed the effort to port the FreeBSD CVS to SVN. > Is there some documentation around, that describes the New Way for us > mere mortals? One of the reasons that there hasn't been any big announcements about this is that all commits made in the svn repo are being passed directly into the cvs repo as well, so for at least the near future (and maybe a bit longer) there is not a New Way yet. All the cvs/cvsup/csup stuff you're using now will still work, nothing has been disabled. > Specific questions that come to my mind: > > - How will repository propagation be done in the future? rsync? That's one possibility. We have a ways to go before decisions are made about this. rsync and svnsync have both been discussed, there may be other possibilities as well. One of the nice things about svn is that for most purposes it's actually not necessary to mirror the repo locally at all. As someone who's been doing that for more than 10 years I'm still getting used to the idea, but it doesn't suck. :) > - Is there one big svn tree or src/ ports/ doc/ seperately? src is the only thing that has been migrated "officially" so far. One crisis at a time please. :) > - Did you fixup the CVS repo-copies into real SVN renames? That's been discussed, and there are some ideas, nothing concrete yet. Peter created a new vendor subtree so that we can experiment with this a bit without rototilling src/contrib. > - Will svn(1) ever be part of the base system? That's not planned at this time. Some of you may have noticed the new devel/subversion-freebsd port. That port adds some patches that are specific to accessing the new freebsd src repo, so most users won't need that yet. When we get farther along the road and we're ready for users to start accessing some form of svn repo more detailed instructions will be posted of course. > - Some statistics about repo-size would be nice :) My understanding is that the full repo is over 3 gigs. Since in a tree checked out with svn you have two copies of every file, my new svn src tree is a little more than 2x my cvs version (1.1G vs. 515M). I'm sure that others could fill in more details for you, but I thought it would be good to give some facts to avoid speculation. :) hth, Doug -- This .signature sanitized for your protection