[Python-Dev] PEP: Migrating the Python CVS to Subversion

[Barry Warsaw]

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> I'd like to see the Python source be stored in Subversion instead
> of CVS

+1

> , and on python.org instead of sf.net. 

+0

I know that SF has promised svn access to projects for a long time now,
but I haven't heard anything from them in a long time.  It's listed
under their "Strategic Projects" but the last update to that news item
was back in April.  Question: do we wait for SF to make the service
available (after getting more up-to-date status and a realistic
timetable), or do we go straight to svn.python.org?

> This is for discussion on python-dev and eventual BDFL pronouncement;
> if you see a reason not to make such a change, or if you would prefer
> a different procedure, please speak up. Encouragement and support is
> welcome, as well :-)

Thanks for writing this PEP Martin!

> 1. Assign passwords for all current committers for use on svn.python.org.
>    User names on SF and svn.python.org should be identical, unless some
>    committer requests a different user name.

We've been going with firstname.lastname (with some exceptions -- hi
Aahz! :) for the current svn access.  Is it better to stay with that
convention or to maintain consistency with SF's CVS committer names? 
Maybe the latter for revision history consistency.

> 2. At the beginning of the migration, announce that the repository on
>    SourceForge closed.

We can probably play games with the various CVS hooks to disable all
checkins during this time.  We might also want to disable the u/i access
to CVS at the same time.

> 4. Convert the CVS repository into two subversion repositories,
>    one for distutils and one for Python.

Do we also want to split off nondist and encodings?  IWBNI the Python
source code proper weren't buried too deep in the directory structure. 
Note that we might want to provide different access permission to
different parts of the repository (but I think we can do that even if we
don't split those off into separate repos).

> As the repository format, fsfs should be used (requires Subversion 1.1).
> fsfs has the advantage of being more backup-friendly, as it allows to
> backup a repository incrementally, without requiring to run any dump
> commands.

Definitely +1 on fsfs.

Again, thanks Martin!
-Barry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 307 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050728/314c72e6/attachment.pgp