Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

[seth vidal]

On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 13:08 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> seth vidal wrote:
> 
> > I'm not positive but this doesn't seem like a board decision. If the
> > releng, fesco and infrastructure teams are at an impasse we can take it
> > up for discussion but I don't see a reason to not let those groups do
> > what they're supposed to do.
> 
> Well, it has already been discussed in fedora-infrastructure list with 
> no agreement on whether this is something we should do or not and that's 
> the reason it is being escalated to the Fedora Project Board. IMO it is 
> certainly something the Fedora Project Board should look into 
> encouraging for two reasons.
> 
> It seems the natural next step for being a better upstream after 
> enabling spins to look at what we can do to enable derivatives (such as 
> OLPC or the work Marvell is doing) which are not just straight subsets 
> of the Fedora repository and it could potentially help us evaluate 
> whether we want to move to distributed SCM's (which also seems to have 
> been discussed without any decision repeatedly). Both of these should be 
> considered by the board individually and in this context too.

When last I looked it sure sounded like fedora-infrastructure thought it
was a duplication of what we already have and an odd duplication at
that. Moreover, it wasn't like fedora-infrastructure couldn't come to a
unanimous decision on the subject, if you read the original thread it
was more like no one cared a whole huge amount and the subject just
died.

Yesterday mike responded with a detailed comment and I agreed with him.
It's a misuse of our very limited disk space and it's not obvious why a
git repo is the one item to waste the disk space on versus another scm.


-sv