Re: Subversion migration schedule (cut-off Fri 18 Mar)

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Sat, 2006-02-11 at 14:12 +0000, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> >  Counter proposal, migrate projects one by one as their maintainers gives
> >the go ahead to proceed with it. Keep an easilly accessible (for both humans
> >and tools) list of what a given project is using at a point in time.
> >
> This is a really good question. Why can't some modules use CVS and 
> others Subversion? It seems like it should be up to a maintainer of a 
> module what SCM system they use. Those who wish to stick with CVS will 
> be forced to go elsewhere if gnome.org drops its CVS support, which 
> introduces new barriers to contributing.

This seems like a mistake to me; there is quite significant extra 
complexity involved in both setup and for people using the system.
(Especially for, say, the i18n team ... they have to use *two* different
sets of version control tools depending on the module.)

If the questions Daniel was asking were actual big problems for us
to resolve, then that extra complexity might be needed, but it's
going to be far easier to just assemble the document that Daniel
is asking for; anonymous access, Windows support, etc, are there,
we just need to explain them to people.

					Owen