Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2011 17:16:59 +0100 From: "Simon L. B. Nielsen" <simon@nitro.dk> To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Ulrich_Sp=F6rlein?= <uqs@FreeBSD.org> Cc: doceng@FreeBSD.org, doc@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Conversion to SVN Message-ID: <4084CDBA-C96D-4D3E-9F99-9F64C68B187D@nitro.dk> In-Reply-To: <20111008120446.GU26743@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20111007141312.GJ26743@acme.spoerlein.net> <12F4B555-D14F-492C-9AC7-669BA33A0AF6@nitro.dk> <20111008120446.GU26743@acme.spoerlein.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 8 Oct 2011, at 13:04, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote: > On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 11:20:53 +0100, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote: >>=20 >> On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ulrich Sp=F6rlein wrote: >>=20 >>> What I, personally, would like to see is us using the same svn repo = as >>> src. That means we would have to stop svn.freebsd.org for the >>> conversion, turn off email sending, dump 50k revisions into it = (under >>> /doc and /www perhaps? where should branches/tags end up?), then = turn >>> everything back on. >>=20 >> The advantages of having one repo need to be significant as the >> disadvantages are certainly there. For svn to perform in the current >> setup all of the repo basically need to fit into RAM - one large repo >> makes this harder as we can't split on multiple servers as needed >> later. >=20 > I doubt that the 650MB of doc/www repo will make a difference here. OK, it's smaller than I recalled - so that part less not an issue for = main servers. >> Also, please think of ports - I really doubt src and ports will fit >> into same repo nicely... >=20 > As I stated earlier, I'm not advocating moving ports into the same = repo. > I'm not that crazy ... My main point was that if ports is still separate, I don't think we gain = much by merging src and doc. >> I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo... >> head/ etc. is on the top level. >=20 > /doc and /www would be the obvious choices. Ed even jokingly (??) said Well, that seems like a bit of a mess as you mainly have branches at = that level... > we should just rename /head to /src ... not sure I concur. Considering we have stable etc. on the same level that seems like a bad = thing to do... Regardless, if it should be one repo (I'm still not convinced at all it = buys us anything useful) Peter need to sign off on it and say it's the = right way to go - at least for me to touch it. --=20 Simon L. B. Nielsen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4084CDBA-C96D-4D3E-9F99-9F64C68B187D>