You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@commons.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2002/11/05 11:53:02 UTC
Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
> From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> Sent: 05 November 2002 05:27
> On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:02, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:31:10PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > Ooh... now I really get to do some Subversion evangelism :-)
> >
> > Does this mean commons will use Subversion instead of CVS? Are you
> > proposing this?
> >
> > +1 from me, FWIW.
>
> +1 from me too (but I can't help as I have no idea about it just yet).
+1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
Sander
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:46:21PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
> >
> > I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
> >
> > I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think
> > it was a lot better than CVS.
>
> i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
> in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
> people.
Lessee... Justin and Sander are on the infrastructure "team" and both have
full commit access to SVN itself. I'll do what I can to help, but am already
pretty full up.
IOW, I think you've already got the input you need :-)
> for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
> how does it mesh with viewcvs?
Pretty well, but there are more things that could be done. I expect we'll
see some of that come out once the ASF starts to deploy SVN.
> the equivalent of anoncvs?
Even easier, as Justin pointed out.
> and
> do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
> systems on collab,
The infrastrutcure guys are assuming the burden.
> plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
> necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
Not sure what you mean. The two systems will be separate, so I'm not sure
what glue will be there.
> i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
> it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
> i don't think we should go it alone.
They'll get it set up. Maybe put their own stuff into it first. I'd say we
jump in, too :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 12:46:21PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
> >
> > I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
> >
> > I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think
> > it was a lot better than CVS.
>
> i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
> in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
> people.
Lessee... Justin and Sander are on the infrastructure "team" and both have
full commit access to SVN itself. I'll do what I can to help, but am already
pretty full up.
IOW, I think you've already got the input you need :-)
> for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
> how does it mesh with viewcvs?
Pretty well, but there are more things that could be done. I expect we'll
see some of that come out once the ASF starts to deploy SVN.
> the equivalent of anoncvs?
Even easier, as Justin pointed out.
> and
> do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
> systems on collab,
The infrastrutcure guys are assuming the burden.
> plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
> necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
Not sure what you mean. The two systems will be separate, so I'm not sure
what glue will be there.
> i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
> it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
> i don't think we should go it alone.
They'll get it set up. Maybe put their own stuff into it first. I'd say we
jump in, too :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Subversion
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:32:43PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> okey, there seem to be answers to all my concerns (though i have a new one,
> below). i'm still +1 in the incubator doing it, and -0 on commons at this
> point.
>
> with all this talk of dav, et cetera -- can svn work with a local repository
> without requiring the network or a properly-configured web server?
You betcha!
The access control goes out the window, though (*). But given that anybody
on icarus has a right to be there, it isn't a big deal.
For example:
[gstein@roshi src]$ svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/incubator/trunk incubator
...
checkout occurs
or:
[gstein@icarus src]$ svn co file:///home/svnrepos/incubator/trunk incubator
...
Pretty cool, eh? :-) On the file: case, no server is needed.
And no, SVN cannot be piped thru ssh like CVS can. You can tunnel the
DAV-based network connection, but that still implies a server on the target
box. Essentially, SVN uses the web's SSL infrastructure rather than the
SSH-based infrastructure.
Cheers,
-g
(*) the real answer here is a bit more complex, so I'm skipping that for
now, to stay focused on the original question. happy to discuss further.
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Subversion
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 08:32:43PM -0500, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> okey, there seem to be answers to all my concerns (though i have a new one,
> below). i'm still +1 in the incubator doing it, and -0 on commons at this
> point.
>
> with all this talk of dav, et cetera -- can svn work with a local repository
> without requiring the network or a properly-configured web server?
You betcha!
The access control goes out the window, though (*). But given that anybody
on icarus has a right to be there, it isn't a big deal.
For example:
[gstein@roshi src]$ svn co https://svn.apache.org/repos/incubator/trunk incubator
...
checkout occurs
or:
[gstein@icarus src]$ svn co file:///home/svnrepos/incubator/trunk incubator
...
Pretty cool, eh? :-) On the file: case, no server is needed.
And no, SVN cannot be piped thru ssh like CVS can. You can tunnel the
DAV-based network connection, but that still implies a server on the target
box. Essentially, SVN uses the web's SSL infrastructure rather than the
SSH-based infrastructure.
Cheers,
-g
(*) the real answer here is a bit more complex, so I'm skipping that for
now, to stay focused on the original question. happy to discuss further.
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Re: Subversion
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
okey, there seem to be answers to all my concerns (though i have a new one,
below). i'm still +1 in the incubator doing it, and -0 on commons at this
point.
with all this talk of dav, et cetera -- can svn work with a local repository
without requiring the network or a properly-configured web server?
Re: Subversion
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
okey, there seem to be answers to all my concerns (though i have a new one,
below). i'm still +1 in the incubator doing it, and -0 on commons at this
point.
with all this talk of dav, et cetera -- can svn work with a local repository
without requiring the network or a properly-configured web server?
Re: Subversion
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:49, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> [cross-posting to general@incubator because of radical suggestion]
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > Sander and I have volunteered in the past to maintain a
> > SVN repository on icarus. I'll reiterate my offer. When
> > we've brought SVN up on the infrastructure@ lists, people
> > wanted to see an early adopter before we deploy it. I
> > think it makes sense for us to be that early adopter.
>
> actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
> early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
> coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
> nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
> as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
> populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
>
> better to use the new stuff for things making a clean start,
> i think.
Maybe ;) But for completely selfish reasons I would also like to see it at
commons (in addition to if necessary). The reason being that we could then
start importing code into Apache Commons now - right away. If we get the
structure wrong we can then change it by just moving files - without harming
our users, without loosing history and without any ugly CVS hacks.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------*
| You can't wake a person who is pretending |
| to be asleep. -Navajo Proverb. |
*------------------------------------------------*
Re: Subversion
Posted by Peter Donald <pe...@apache.org>.
On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 07:49, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> [cross-posting to general@incubator because of radical suggestion]
>
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > Sander and I have volunteered in the past to maintain a
> > SVN repository on icarus. I'll reiterate my offer. When
> > we've brought SVN up on the infrastructure@ lists, people
> > wanted to see an early adopter before we deploy it. I
> > think it makes sense for us to be that early adopter.
>
> actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
> early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
> coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
> nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
> as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
> populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
>
> better to use the new stuff for things making a clean start,
> i think.
Maybe ;) But for completely selfish reasons I would also like to see it at
commons (in addition to if necessary). The reason being that we could then
start importing code into Apache Commons now - right away. If we get the
structure wrong we can then change it by just moving files - without harming
our users, without loosing history and without any ugly CVS hacks.
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
*------------------------------------------------*
| You can't wake a person who is pretending |
| to be asleep. -Navajo Proverb. |
*------------------------------------------------*
Re: Subversion
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 3:49 PM -0500 11/5/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
>early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
>coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
>nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
>as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
>populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
>
This implies that they will "stick" with Subv upon graduation, to
make it as easy and painless as possible
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Subversion
Posted by Jim Jagielski <ji...@apache.org>.
At 3:49 PM -0500 11/5/02, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
>
>actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
>early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
>coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
>nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
>as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
>populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
>
This implies that they will "stick" with Subv upon graduation, to
make it as easy and painless as possible
--
===========================================================================
Jim Jagielski [|] jim@jaguNET.com [|] http://www.jaguNET.com/
"A society that will trade a little liberty for a little order
will lose both and deserve neither" - T.Jefferson
Re: Subversion
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
[cross-posting to general@incubator because of radical suggestion]
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> Sander and I have volunteered in the past to maintain a
> SVN repository on icarus. I'll reiterate my offer. When
> we've brought SVN up on the infrastructure@ lists, people
> wanted to see an early adopter before we deploy it. I
> think it makes sense for us to be that early adopter.
actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
better to use the new stuff for things making a clean start,
i think.
Re: Subversion
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
[cross-posting to general@incubator because of radical suggestion]
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
> Sander and I have volunteered in the past to maintain a
> SVN repository on icarus. I'll reiterate my offer. When
> we've brought SVN up on the infrastructure@ lists, people
> wanted to see an early adopter before we deploy it. I
> think it makes sense for us to be that early adopter.
actually, i think it would make much more sense for the
early adopter to be the incubator project, since codebases
coming in there should have no prior existence in apache-land,
nor any subsequent need to merge histories from elsewhere.
as opposed to commons, which is going to be (at least partially)
populated by codebases moving from elsewhere within apache.
better to use the new stuff for things making a clean start,
i think.
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
--On Tuesday, November 05, 2002 12:46:21 -0500 Rodent of Unusual Size
<Ke...@Golux.Com> wrote:
> i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
> in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
> people. for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
> how does it mesh with viewcvs? the equivalent of anoncvs? and
> do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
> systems on collab, plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
> necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
ViewCVS can now handle SVN repositories. C. Mike Pilato from the
Subversion team added the necessary bits. I'm not sure how stable it is -
I've heard it will be in the next ViewCVS release, and I'm sure we could
provide feedback and fixes. (This is in addition to normal browsing of the
repository.)
With Subversion, anonymous access is easy and free. That is just a GET of
the repository. The only operations that require authentication are write
operations (at least in how we would deploy it). It also has the advantage
that any committers to commons don't *need* an associated account on
cvs.apache.org - this may allow us to have a lower barrier of entry. There
is no longer a distinction between 'anoncvs' and 'ssh' repositories. IMHO,
that's a tremendous win.
And, substantial work has been made to cvs2svn recently. If we have a
repository to convert, I'll volunteer to add any missing bits to the
cvs2svn translator that it doesn't already recognize. (Should be no
problem with serf as that is a very basic CVS repository.)
> i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
> it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
> i don't think we should go it alone.
Sander and I have volunteered in the past to maintain a SVN repository on
icarus. I'll reiterate my offer. When we've brought SVN up on the
infrastructure@ lists, people wanted to see an early adopter before we
deploy it. I think it makes sense for us to be that early adopter. And,
regardless, I believe the CollabNet team is very familiar with Subversion.
The biggest problem is that we need SSL keys for icarus, and my requests
for assistance on that front from infrastructure@ has been met with dead
silence and apathy. This is one of the reasons why I'm pushing for some
type of infrastructure committee. Either we need to create our own CA, or
we need to purchase Verisign certs. -- justin
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 18:46, Rodent of Unusual Size wrote:
> Leo Simons wrote:
> >
> > > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
> >
> > I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
> >
> > I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think
> > it was a lot better than CVS.
>
> i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
> in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
> people. for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
> how does it mesh with viewcvs? the equivalent of anoncvs? and
> do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
> systems on collab, plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
> necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
>
> i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
> it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
> i don't think we should go it alone.
I'm totally with you here. I was just assuming that if it is even
possible at all to use subversion @ apache, that's because there's kind
folks in the infrastructure team who have set it up and are willing to
do help out :)
I believe 'user usability' of subversion is somewhat lower than for cvs
(like no ide plugins or GUIs). I don't know the status of the projects
that are working on all that. I don't care for all that myself, but if
there are people that do, to an extend where apache commons might be
hurt because they won't use subversion (and it seems that is the
case)....that's another clear no-go imho.
regards,
Leo
RE: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>.
> From: Rodent of Unusual Size [mailto:Ken.Coar@Golux.Com]
> Sent: 05 November 2002 18:46
> Leo Simons wrote:
>>
>>> +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
>>
>> I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
>>
>> I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think
>> it was a lot better than CVS.
>
> i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
> in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
> people.
> for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
cvs2svn
> how does it mesh with viewcvs?
meshes well ;). viewcvs was refactored and now has two backends,
cvs and svn. Although I do remember a small issue with the svn
backend, not sure if that is resolved by now.
> the equivalent of anoncvs?
Simply use httpd authorization rules. With a LimitExcept block
the write operations can be required to be from an authenticated
user, while read operations simply fall through without ever
prompting for a password (an improvement).
> and do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
> systems on collab,
We are going to make the transition some day. And not everything
is going to be switched over night anyway, so maintaining two
scm systems for a period of time is inevitable.
> plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
> necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
All the basic stuff we need is present in the subversion repository.
Hook scripts for commit mailing, fine grained access control, etc.
> i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
> it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
> i don't think we should go it alone.
Indeed, we should move other projects to Subversion aswell ;) :)
Sander 'in a good mood'
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com>.
Leo Simons wrote:
>
> > +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
>
> I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
>
> I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think
> it was a lot better than CVS.
i haven't used it [yet], but i'm -1 on being the first project
in the asf to go with it without some input from the infrastructure
people. for instance, aside from the history import aspect,
how does it mesh with viewcvs? the equivalent of anoncvs? and
do we really want to put the burden of maintaining two cms
systems on collab, plus prototype all the infrastructural glue
necessary to fit in with the existing cvs repositories?
i say not. let's wait for the infrastructure team to work on
it. we can volunteer to be one of their early adopters, but
i don't think we should go it alone.
Re: Subversion, WAS: RE: CVS/Mail Organization Feedback
Posted by Leo Simons <le...@apache.org>.
On Tue, 2002-11-05 at 11:53, Sander Striker wrote:
> > From: Peter Donald [mailto:peter@apache.org]
> > Sent: 05 November 2002 05:27
>
> > On Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:02, Scott Sanders wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 04, 2002 at 06:31:10PM -0800, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > Ooh... now I really get to do some Subversion evangelism :-)
> > >
> > > Does this mean commons will use Subversion instead of CVS? Are you
> > > proposing this?
> > >
> > > +1 from me, FWIW.
> >
> > +1 from me too (but I can't help as I have no idea about it just yet).
>
> +1 on using Subversion. But hey, I'm biased ;)
I'd like to add a non-binding +1 here, which is unbiased :)
I've never heard anyone who's seen subversion who didn't think it was a
lot better than CVS.
cheers,
Leo Simons