I'd say the next steps are for someone to:
a) set up a test respository and try the conversion b) propose a layout of trunks and branches (IIRC, there is some choice in the matter).
SourceForge's SVN does not currently have ACLs, and AFAIK, no one is volunteering to host SVN. IEM has been mentioned, but I am not sure that IOhannes really wants more sysadmin work.
.hc
On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:39 PM, Luke Iannini (pd) wrote:
Any updates on this? I promise to take (one of) the official role(s) of "SVN newbie help" to all that need it after (if?) the change takes place : ).
Regarding the user accounts, Zope seems to have XML export for objects http://www.zope.org/Documentation/Books/ZopeBook/2_6Edition/ UsingZope.stx. That could perhaps be parsed for migrating to LDAP? (if this is completely off base, sorry : ), I only skimmed quickly through.)
Finally, regarding the CVS ACLs, these should be easily translatable to Subversion Per-directory Access Control (which does mean we'd have to run Subversion via Apache). This is covered on pg. 132 of the SVN Book http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/ svn.serverconfig.httpd.html#svn.serverconfig.httpd.authz.perdir
Luke
On 8/21/06, Hans-Christoph Steiner hans@eds.org wrote:
On Aug 13, 2006, at 11:56 AM, Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
- developer vote:
Should the SF repository switch from CVS to SVN on Sourceforge? [ ] yes [ ] no
i am all for it, but: does sourceforge already implement some
kind of
acl for svn? or can we live without acl's?
Uh, we need to check this. But AFAIK we currently only use the
ACL on
Miller's branch.
There are a few more ACLs than that:
http://pure-data.cvs.sourceforge.net/pure-data/CVSROOT/avail? view=markup
This is probably important, so it needs to be sorted before the transition. If ACLs are in place, then I vote YES, otherwise MAYBE (there would have to be some more politicing)...
.hc
- sort out techical issues with branches, tags etc.
for externals i would suggest to split branches on each external separately, (e.g. /externals/zexy/trunk instead of /trunk/ externals/zexy or /externals/trunk/zexy)
Yes, I agree with this, but this can be dealt with after The Big Change, I suppose. For the externals we also should to take care
not
to break the extended Build-system. Some changes will be
necessary to
the Build of course, because of the usual trunk/tags/branches
layout
in SVN.
I cannot really comment on how to best deal with the branches of
Pd's
sources.
- find someone (incl. admins!) who volunteers to do the
import. I
would volunteer but I wouldn't want to do this completely alone.
i would volunteer too, however i don't see any advantage in having 2 (or more) persons involved in the migration. (probably when they are at the same terminal, like with XP, then there might be a benefit)
Let's do it mid-September then, when I'm in Graz. ;)
I would actually prefer if someone else than me would do it, as I'm not that experienced especially with CVS internals, so I would
gladly
let you take over.
Ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org_
__goto10.org__
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick. - David Zicarelli
PD-dev mailing list PD-dev@iem.at http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"[W]e have invented the technology to eliminate scarcity, but we are deliberately throwing it away to benefit those who profit from scarcity." -John Gilmore