Re: Git vs SVN (was: Can we improve things?)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 06:28:49PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> [moving thread to d-d-l]
> On Mon, 2007-09-10 at 23:33 +0200, Olav Vitters wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2007 at 03:05:18PM -0500, Federico Mena Quintero wrote:
> > > Because it is no longer possible to create new SVN modules easily, as it
> > > was when we used CVS.  By "easily" I mean that it you want to create a
> > > module, you don't need to ask anyone to do it for you.
> > 
> > So ehr, we should have ?
> > (or whatever?)
> I don't know how Subversion repositories work.  Why can't people simply
> do
>   svn import mynewmodule svn://

I think one of 2 things:
1. Because /cvs/gnome was a repos, and /svn is not. E.g., under CVS, you
couldn't (IIRC) create something under /cvs, but you could under SVN.
2. CVS was smart enough to create the repos

If you check svn help import you see:
import: Commit an unversioned file or tree into the repository.

"into the repository" ... it isn't smart enough to create the repos

e.g., see the error message:
svn: No repository found in 'svn+ssh://'

This is why I proposed testingground.. if that would exist, you could
create a repos there. However, later on, you want to move that into a
real repos. IMO that might be nice on short term, not on long term
(needs to be a real repos, dump&load work, etc).

> [Just tested it - doesn't work.]
> [During the days of, /cvs/gnome was group-writable by
> member of the "cvsusers" group; that was enough for people to be able to
> import new modules.  Not everyone had a full shell account; they were
> restricted to cvs only.]

But SVN doesn't create the repos, only svnadmin does that (I sorta feel
like I am repeating myself too much). CVS did it; SVN does not. 

> > > - which leads you to
> > > if you want to
> > > import your code, but THAT WON'T WORK because it still talks about "cvs
> > > import".
> > 
> > Feel free to fix it and point to NewSVNRepos.
> Sure, I'll do that.  I was just describing the sort of experience that
> developers get when trying to use our infrastructure.

Anything to improve that experience I gladly welcome. But ehr, I won't
notice if nobody says it.

> [Straw poll: how many people here *don't* know that
> is a module on SVN?  How many people don't know the corresponding module
> name?]

It is meant to be replaced for loads of years now. Anyone who wants to
pick this (guide for website modules.. but ehr, how to you locate the
guide? or anything else to improve infrastucture docs) up feel free.

> > if it doesn't, just mention this (it is a wiki:).
> See, how was I supposed to know that?  I assume that whoever hands out
> new repositories wrote the NewSVNRepos page and put accurate information
> there.

Perhaps it was a simple oversight that is now corrected?

In CVS, people could create things themselves. It isn't that weird that
when changing a SCM some things are overlooked. I am sure if/when we
switch, more stuff will break in various ways. The intention is to avoid
it, but reality every switch is risk (although IMO I don't find this
NewSVNRepos oversight such a huge issue)

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]