Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Gentoo: Doc

svn vs cvs

 

 

Gentoo doc RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


g2boojum at gentoo

Sep 15, 2005, 1:28 PM

Post #1 of 7 (1390 views)
Permalink
svn vs cvs

Hi, all.

One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around. Of
course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain. I'd love to see our gentoo
tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
course you folks are the major users of that tree. Has this been
considered? This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.

Thanks,
g2boojum
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum [at] gentoo
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76


vapier at gentoo

Sep 15, 2005, 1:57 PM

Post #2 of 7 (1330 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

On Thursday 15 September 2005 04:28 pm, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
> point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around. Of
> course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain. I'd love to see our gentoo
> tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
> course you folks are the major users of that tree. Has this been
> considered? This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
> feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.

although moving around in cvs is a pita, i dont see it being all that common
in the xml subdir ... many of the other benefits that svn has over cvs
(branching and changesets) just isnt that useful in terms of website
management imo ...

also, although i cant comment on this directly, i imagine that all the
infrastructure we have in place (automated QA checks, cvs->website nodes,
etc...) would be a pain to change over too ...
-mike
--
gentoo-doc [at] gentoo mailing list


wolf31o2 at gentoo

Sep 15, 2005, 2:06 PM

Post #3 of 7 (1337 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:28 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
> point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around. Of
> course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain. I'd love to see our gentoo
> tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
> course you folks are the major users of that tree. Has this been
> considered? This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
> feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.

The tree is ~250MB at this time. Both genkernel and catalyst are under
this tree, and I'm sure that we don't want to move either of these any
time soon.

--
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux
Attachments: signature.asc (0.18 KB)


vapier at gentoo

Sep 15, 2005, 3:22 PM

Post #4 of 7 (1335 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

On Thursday 15 September 2005 05:06 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-09-15 at 15:28 -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> > One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
> > point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around. Of
> > course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain. I'd love to see our gentoo
> > tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
> > course you folks are the major users of that tree. Has this been
> > considered? This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
> > feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.
>
> The tree is ~250MB at this time. Both genkernel and catalyst are under
> this tree, and I'm sure that we don't want to move either of these any
> time soon.

i think this thread was more about gentoo/xml/ ... but gentoo/src/ is
certainly candidate for moving to svn as soon as project leads feel it's
appropriate
-mike
--
gentoo-doc [at] gentoo mailing list


pylon at gentoo

Sep 15, 2005, 5:05 PM

Post #5 of 7 (1335 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

* Mike Frysinger <vapier [at] gentoo> [05/09/15 16:57 -0400]:
> also, although i cant comment on this directly, i imagine that all the
> infrastructure we have in place (automated QA checks, cvs->website nodes,
> etc...) would be a pain to change over too ...

You name it. I currently rewrite the hook-scripts for a
cvs-upgrade (1.12.12-version). It isn't that much pain, but
it must be done :-/

Regards, Lars

--
Lars Weiler <pylon [at] gentoo> +49-171-1963258
Gentoo Linux PowerPC : Developer and Release Engineer
Gentoo Infrastructure : CVS Administrator
Gentoo Foundation : Trustee


swift at gentoo

Sep 17, 2005, 4:58 AM

Post #6 of 7 (1338 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 03:28:58PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
> One of the consequences of the management restructuring is that at some
> point stuff in gentoo/xml/htdocs/proj/en will probably move around. Of
> course, doing that in CVS is a royal pain. I'd love to see our gentoo
> tree migrate over to svn (not the portage tree, just gentoo!), but of
> course you folks are the major users of that tree. Has this been
> considered? This tree is still fairly large, so it might not yet be
> feasible w/ svn, but I don't know if anybody has tried.

I wouldn't mind to move over to SVN personally. Just Another Versioning
Tool. But I do hope that SVN (don't know it really) supports:

- Running a tool right before the check-in is made permanent (in this case,
check for GuideXML syntax, but in future might be expanded)
- Annotate function

Just don't ask us to migrate to ClearCase...

Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen

--
Gentoo Foundation Trustee | http://foundation.gentoo.org
Gentoo Documentation Project Lead | http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gdp
Gentoo Council Member

The Gentoo Project <<< http://www.gentoo.org >>>


jkt at gentoo

Aug 13, 2006, 3:24 AM

Post #7 of 7 (1335 views)
Permalink
Re: svn vs cvs [In reply to]

Sven Vermeulen wrote:
> I wouldn't mind to move over to SVN personally. Just Another Versioning
> Tool. But I do hope that SVN (don't know it really) supports:

Okay, resurrecting the old thread :)

> - Running a tool right before the check-in is made permanent (in this case,
> check for GuideXML syntax, but in future might be expanded)

Yes, SVN supports hooks.

> - Annotate function

Yup, `svn annotate some/file` (and with a really nice alias `svn blame
some/file`).

Another benefits:

* generating diffs against latest version without contacting the server
(SVN creates a pristine copy on a checkout)
* possibility to stick arbitrary metadata to files (so the translators
could just create a new "property", "en-revision", for example, and use
it for keeping track of the version the current translation is based on)
* branching, see below

Mike Frysinger wrote:
> although moving around in cvs is a pita, i dont see it being all that
> common in the xml subdir ... many of the other benefits that svn has
> over cvs (branching and changesets) just isnt that useful in terms of
> website management imo ...

Well, just have a look at the draft/ subdirectories, especially those
related to the handbooks.


Just to be clear - I don't propose the conversion now, during the
release work, but I certainly see the benefits that are worth the
conversion at a less-exposed time.

So, what about a gentoo-doc or gentoo-website repo? Looking at the
current structure, GDP/website is interested only in
gentoo/cvs/gentoo/xml/, and the "work" subdirectory can be nuked (the
only doc is an outdated draft from peitolm).

Cheers,
-jkt

--
cd /local/pub && more beer > /dev/mouth
Attachments: signature.asc (0.25 KB)

Gentoo doc RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.