Re: conversion to subversion
Hi Peter!
You wrote:
>> Although Subversion is not such a big improvement over CVS as we might
>> have liked, other systems, like git, have certain disadvantages (which
>> mainly have to do with the possibility of partial checkout, a steeper
>> learning curve for translators, and the compatibility with the current
>> scripts) that are hard to overcome at this time. In any case, i think
>> moving to Subversion is an improvement.
>
> And what are the gains from moving to Subversion? Besides tracking copies
> and having a globally unique revision history, I can't really see any
> gains as far as webwml is concerned. But feel free to enlighten me.
Better robustness, for one. While converting the CVS repository to svn,
we found quite a few half-commited files and stuff like that. That
shouldn't happen with subversion anymore. Furthermore, svn has a bit
nicer offline operation than CVS (although it is nothing like git, of
course), and it supports things like file moves (retaining chinge
history). Also, subversion is actually actively maintained upstream.
>> Note that this is a scratch repository. It was converted from CVS a
>> few weeks ago, so some wml files are out of date.
>
> Please make sure that if we decide to do a change, that the history is
> retained, as it is very important when it comes to the translations. Of
> course, since the translations are tied to the CVS history and its
> revision numbers, keeping that consistent after converting to any new
> format will be a pain (but it nevertheless needs to be addressed).
Obviously. Just take a look at the websvn, and you'll see that that's
all taken care of.
Bas.
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------+
| Bas Zoetekouw | Sweet day, so cool, so calm, so bright, |
|--------------------| The bridall of the earth and skie: |
| bas@zoetekouw.net | The dew shall weep thy fall tonight; |
+--------------------| For thou must die. |
+-----------------------------------------+
Reply to: