Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:21:25 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= <uqs@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: "Simon L. B. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk>, freebsd-doc@freebsd.org, doc@freebsd.org, doceng@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Conversion to SVN Message-ID: <20111011192125.GF26743@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <201110101301.37276.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <20111008120446.GU26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <4084CDBA-C96D-4D3E-9F99-9F64C68B187D@nitro.dk> <201110101301.37276.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2011-10-10 at 13:01:36 -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Saturday, October 08, 2011 12:16:59 pm Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: > > >> I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo... > > >> head/ etc. is on the top level. > > > > > > /doc and /www would be the obvious choices. Ed even jokingly (??) said > > > > Well, that seems like a bit of a mess as you mainly have branches at that level... > > > > > we should just rename /head to /src ... not sure I concur. > > > > Considering we have stable etc. on the same level that seems like a bad thing to do... > > I agree with both of these. The layout in svn currently is src-centric and > only setup to handle src. You would need to move the entire repo down into a > new "src" directory for it to really work, but we aren't going to do that now. > I think a separate SVN for doc+www is fine (and not near as much overhead to > manage as Ulrich fears). I obviously don't see the need to move src one level down. It is clear that src is our main product and somewhat special. It doesn't preclude doc, www, ports even, to move in under /doc, /www, and /ports. > Also, I think the discontinuous history idea is a compelling reason to not put > the doc/www history into source svn. Right now svn changes move forward > continuously with time (so change N + 1 is "newer" than change N), but > importing doc+www history as changes that are subsequent to the current top of > tree would break that. And? Seriously, does anything depend on that? Sure the "50k revision number bump" is not exactly nice, but I honestly don't see a problem with it. > OTOH, renumbering the current tree to put the doc+www > history in the "right" place is simply not workable now. Importing doc+www > into the current SVN is something that would have needed to be done during the > initial CVS -> SVN conversion, but that ship has sailed. What's sad is, that there never will be a final VCS for FreeBSD. So while currently all commit messages that refer to some RCS revisions are rather useless, there will come a time, post-SVN, when all references to SVN revisions are useless. Here's one more reason why I think doc+www should be in the src repo: In the coming weeks, I'm going to move committers.dot and most of share/doc/* from src to doc. It would've been nice if this could be done with svn moves and retain the history. Is someone familiar with how the llvm and clang SVN repos are interlinked? Perhaps this could be a compromise were we'll get the 50k revision number bump, *but* no monotonicity would've been violated in src-svn.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20111011192125.GF26743>