You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to general@incubator.apache.org by Rodent of Unusual Size <Ke...@Golux.Com> on 2002/11/05 21:49:21 UTC
Re: Subversion
[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 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