Re: move to subversion

[Richard Lewis <rtf@jabble.com>]

Frank Küster <frank@debian.org> writes:

> Julian Gilbey <jdg@polya.uklinux.net> wrote:
>
>> Suggestion: given the complexity of the tetex packages, I propose that
>> we move to a Subversion repository. 
>
> I agree.  I cannot say anything about subversion vs. arch
> vs. whatever, but a move to something more modern than cvs is surely
> a good thing.

subversion is based on the premise "CVS is a good model for version
control [but the implementation that needs improving]", arch is based
on adifferent model (distributed repositories).

>> Given that the CVS repository is also in a bit of a mess, this is a
>> very good opportunity to make such a change.
>
> Yes, that's a good argument, too.

except you probably want to use cvs2svn to convert the old history to
svn, and the brokenness might make this harder.  but it may not.

> Can you point me to any good howto "subversion for former cvs users"?
>

http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/doc/user/cvs-crossover-guide.html

Also, the main documentation is http://svnbook.red-bean.com/, there's
an appendix for CVS users
(http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/apa.html)

but mostly you just s/cvs/svn on the command line.  (In emacs use M-x
svn-status from psvn.el)

> I guess we would start the svn repository completely from scratch,
> right?

or use cvs2svn

>  We should probably have a copy of the sarge version in it, but
> then, for tetex-base, there's the problem of the directory move.  I
> guess there isn't a "nice" solution for this? 

i'm not quite sure what you refer to, but subversion does support
symlinks as well as files/dir moves