Jim Meyering wrote:
Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath(a)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
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.