hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
Mike McGrath
mmcgrath at redhat.com
Thu Nov 29 16:26:50 UTC 2007
Jim Meyering wrote:
> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> Jim Meyering wrote:
>>
>>> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> tried this, its not an easy task. But adding an additional SCM for
>>>> GIT which is JUST a copy of what's in CVS sounds like a waste of our
>>>> resources. Why not also do SVN, BZR and Mercurial?
>>>>
>>> IMHO, they're not as useful.
>>>
>> And thats the real trick, I'd imagine the mercurial, svn and bzr guys
>> would disagree with you.
>>
>>
>>> If Fedora doesn't want to do this, I can probably set up
>>> something independent and provide public git:// access.
>>>
>> If someone else wants to host it I'm all for it, we can certainly make
>> it easier to get at the raw CVS repo. If the other officers disagree
>> please let it be known, but this sounds more like a distraction/one
>> off then something that adds value to our infrastructure.
>>
>
> At 5GB+, (4.5GB for a copy of the cvs repo + 700MB for git) that's too
> heavy for me. And besides, it'd really be better under the Fedora
> umbrella. Seeing as how much more efficient the git protocol is,
> if a few people switch to it from cvs, it'd actually decrease network
> bandwidth requirements.
>
> Is there anything I can do to revive this idea?
> For example, I'd be happy to own and set up the tools/infrastructure
> required to make it all work (I've already done this on three public servers).
> All I'd need is an open git port and access to the config files.
>
If you think git is so much better than CVS (many would agree with you)
come up with a proposal on how we can migrate to it, propose it, then
convince people its the right thing to do.
-Mike
More information about the Fedora-infrastructure-list
mailing list