Re: cvs access methods

[Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com>]

On Tue, 2004-07-20 at 22:04, Jonathan Blandford wrote:
> Ross McFarland <rwmcfa1 neces com> writes:
> 
> > i'm a member of the Gtk2-Perl team which currently uses sourceforge for
> > most of the project hosting. we'd talked about and would like to switch
> > to gnome.org and at this point have decided to look into actually
> > moving. that being said one of the oft used sf abilities (for two of the
> > developers) is cvs through ssh. which allows us to get out from work
> > (behind a corporate firewall.) reading around i didn't see anything that
> > indicated developer access through ssh was supported, did i miss
> > something?
> 
> It's currently supported, and we're moving to an ssh-only setup in the
> long run.  I can't imagine that there's any reason why we couldn't get
> you space on the GNOME server.

very cool. we'll likely look into transitioning following the next
language bindings rel coming up soon, at a point where we can freeze the
cvs repository long enough to get a copy of it up at gnome. (rather than
import we'd like to have the cvs histories and all brought in if
possible) 

i'm looking around at the the information about the gnome repositories
and stuff now so that i'll have an idea of the process. currently we
have 4 active developers, muppet (scott arrington,) kaffee (torsten
schoenfeld,) ebassi (emmanuele bassi,) and myself. (don't think i've
left anyone out that's recently contributed.) we have 19 perl bindings
modules comprising around ~8 megs of source, examples, etc.

> Our current opinion is that source control systems is a GNOME-wide
> project decision that needs to be made.  One of the real strengths of
> the current CVS is that it is consistent.  Everyone (coders,
> translators, documenters, etc) can access it in one way.  If we start
> allowing alternate version controls (svn, arch, monotone, etc.), we'll
> get a fragmented system.  I wouldn't be surprised if the project as a
> whole moved in some direction in the next couple years, but it's not the
> sysadmin team's call.

i used google to search this list for mention of subversion and didn't
get any hits. since i've done the same for mail.gnome.org and found
plenty of references to it in various places and pretty much figured the
above out. i understand the desire for uniformity. 

thanks again,
-rm