hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?

[Mike McGrath]

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