Re: Subversion Migration: the importance of maturity.

On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 15:59 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> Hello,
> > > The Mono repository holds 1.6 gigabytes of data.
> > 
> > I don't have access to the server that has all Ubuntu archives but as
> > you can guess, if Ubuntu imports all packages it ships will be much more
> > bigger than 1.6GB...
> Is this checking in a tarball, or checking in the uncompressed tarball
> and managing the resulting binary?

It's checking the whole CVS tree (and I think also Subversion) so the
history is preserved.

> Does this check every vendor release into its own branch?

The idea I think is that one, yes, have the changes done by every vendor
in their own branches.

> > Well, I know that Debian and some GNOME products are already using Arch.
> > Ubuntu is finishing the deployment to start using it a lot and thus any
> > derivative will use it also (like KUbuntu and Guadalinex)
> > 
> > About others using Arch:
> A very interesting list, but it does not seem to have any large projects
> with hundreds of developers.  

As I said, I'm not trying to introduce Arch as the way to go, I'm just
saying that your points were not as accurate as your mail seem to state.

I'm not the right person to advocate an Arch migration. In fact I said
that I think we should let the maintainer choose whatever solution they
think is better for their module.

Btw, I think Ubuntu could enter the "large projects with hundreds of
developers" category.

> > > > Arch has also developers working on it at full time.
> > > 
> > > Lets get numbers: how many.
> > > 
> > > Subversion has 8 full time employees that have been working full time
> > > since 2000, and they are employed by Collab.NET that specializes on
> > > this. 
> > 
> > I don't have those details, sorry.
> I think it is a very important feature if we are talking about moving
> something as delicate as GNOME to use a new source code control system.
> This is not a trivial discussion and not one that can be easily reworked
> later on.

Of course, but as I said, I'm not the right person to propose Arch as
our main way to control our source code. I'm not even proposing Arch to
be it, I'm just adding some extra information to the facts you sent
about Subversion as if it were the only one with them...

Again, I'm not going to argue more about this, because I don't have all
the information you ask and I think that everyone should be able to
choose whatever they wants to maintain the project they develop.


> Miguel
Carlos Perelló Marín
Ubuntu Hoary (PowerPC)  =>
Linux Registered User #121232
mailto:carlos pemas net || mailto:carlos gnome org
Valencia - Spain

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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