From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3AIZiOH007987 for ; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:35:45 GMT Received: from [62.254.189.226] (helo=snowdrop) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1DKhHZ-0000Aj-5B for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 18:35:41 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=snowdrop) by snowdrop with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DKhGQ-0008T7-GV for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:34:30 +0100 Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:34:27 +0100 From: Ciaran McCreesh To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion? Message-ID: <20050410193427.43968e1d@snowdrop> In-Reply-To: <200504102027.05326.trapni@gentoo.org> References: <425956D1.5040006@gentoo.org> <200504101944.20884.trapni@gentoo.org> <20050410185316.5189b801@snowdrop> <200504102027.05326.trapni@gentoo.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.0.4 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i686-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=Signature_Sun__10_Apr_2005_19_34_27_+0100_sbsDT9BSB1PeV5Ff; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 X-Archives-Salt: b1dab2d2-9c3d-4671-aea9-37ee6c582f17 X-Archives-Hash: ecdc377d24429bf3d4cda1e83eae2191 --Signature_Sun__10_Apr_2005_19_34_27_+0100_sbsDT9BSB1PeV5Ff Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart 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. --=20 Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm --Signature_Sun__10_Apr_2005_19_34_27_+0100_sbsDT9BSB1PeV5Ff Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCWXG196zL6DUtXhERAoltAKDY4FfGlMq9libZUTTnQHudN1ijoACfQJyj jvfHeiKkWoRd7XtzdCBRCz0= =yeqn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Signature_Sun__10_Apr_2005_19_34_27_+0100_sbsDT9BSB1PeV5Ff-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list