From owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 2 21:49:21 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 1E2ED106566C; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:49:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [88.198.49.12]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D6B78FC21; Wed, 2 Nov 2011 21:49:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:131:23c2::1]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id pA2LQ1S1098414 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:26:01 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from uqs@FreeBSD.org) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2011 22:26:00 +0100 From: =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: Doug Barton Message-ID: <20111102212600.GC26743@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <201110251405.46493.jhb@freebsd.org> <4EABB0AB.9070808@FreeBSD.org> <201111021421.30777.jhb@freebsd.org> <4EB19BBF.70608@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4EB19BBF.70608@FreeBSD.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: "Simon L. B. Nielsen" , freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org, John Baldwin , doceng@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: Wed, 02 Nov 2011 21:49:21 -0000 On Wed, 2011-11-02 at 12:36:31 -0700, Doug Barton wrote: > On 11/02/2011 11:21, John Baldwin wrote: > > If you really want to do this in the same repo, I won't object. > > Just to be clear, I personally do think it's the right design choice, > sure. But there are also plenty of people who have been talking about > the benefits that this would bring. It would be nice if some of those > people speak up now. :) 1. One less thing to admin/maintain (and btw, I'm of the opinion we should get rid of the svn->cvs exporter, but that's another can of worms) 2. Changesets spanning source *and* documentation. 3. The possibility to svn mv parts of src into doc and vice versa. Might actually simplify release building, but I'm not familiar with that. 4. Less confusion about what a svn revision number means. With CVS IDs everybody knew it's about a file. If we would have two or three SVN repos, then 'r123456' can mean three wildly different things. 5. There's already more than just source in the svn, namely portmaster and stress2. It would be nice if we could move all the "user" stuff from /projects into /user and have /projects be for non-source stuff like stress2 and portmaster. And while we're at it, we call it 'docproj', so why not stick it under /projects/doc ? (I'm only partially serious about this ...) I'm sure there's more that will only be obvious once we've done the switch. But the actual doc committers have been very silent on this subject lately. Cheers, Uli