[Python-Dev] PEP: Migrating the Python CVS to Subversion (original) (raw)

Barry Warsaw barry at python.org
Fri Jul 29 00:30:44 CEST 2005

On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:

I'd like to see the Python source be stored in Subversion instead of CVS

+1

, and on python.org instead of sf.net.

+0

I know that SF has promised svn access to projects for a long time now, but I haven't heard anything from them in a long time. It's listed under their "Strategic Projects" but the last update to that news item was back in April. Question: do we wait for SF to make the service available (after getting more up-to-date status and a realistic timetable), or do we go straight to svn.python.org?

This is for discussion on python-dev and eventual BDFL pronouncement; if you see a reason not to make such a change, or if you would prefer a different procedure, please speak up. Encouragement and support is welcome, as well :-)

Thanks for writing this PEP Martin!

1. Assign passwords for all current committers for use on svn.python.org. User names on SF and svn.python.org should be identical, unless some committer requests a different user name.

We've been going with firstname.lastname (with some exceptions -- hi Aahz! :) for the current svn access. Is it better to stay with that convention or to maintain consistency with SF's CVS committer names? Maybe the latter for revision history consistency.

2. At the beginning of the migration, announce that the repository on SourceForge closed.

We can probably play games with the various CVS hooks to disable all checkins during this time. We might also want to disable the u/i access to CVS at the same time.

4. Convert the CVS repository into two subversion repositories, one for distutils and one for Python.

Do we also want to split off nondist and encodings? IWBNI the Python source code proper weren't buried too deep in the directory structure. Note that we might want to provide different access permission to different parts of the repository (but I think we can do that even if we don't split those off into separate repos).

As the repository format, fsfs should be used (requires Subversion 1.1). fsfs has the advantage of being more backup-friendly, as it allows to backup a repository incrementally, without requiring to run any dump commands.

Definitely +1 on fsfs.

Again, thanks Martin! -Barry

-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 307 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20050728/314c72e6/attachment.pgp

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list