Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh <ciaranm@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1176 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
| single  repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
| about to convert  everything into a single svn repos as well (for
| other reasons). For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense
| (administrative) to keep  everything into a single repository as well.
| However, providing each sub  project with its own repository will work
| around the single-point-of-failure  effect (in worst case) so it's
| likely to happen this way.

Nothing to do with single points of failure. SVN uses transactions and
changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on a
per project basis. Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN
revision IDs are actually meaningful, and you don't want to lock every
single Gentoo project whilst one person on a slow dialup connection does
a single transaction to a single project.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]