Hosting and Supporting GIT conversion of Fedora CVS to enable downstream development efforts and distributions

Mike McGrath mmcgrath at redhat.com
Wed Nov 28 15:30:57 UTC 2007


Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>
>> I don't think anybody disagrees that we should move to another SCM that
>> allows for better downstream interaction.  However just a direct copy
>> of our workflow to git doesn't help.  
>
> If it doesn't help people wouldn't have requested it in the first 
> place. It might be the case that we don't want that as a final plan 
> but this could be a incremental process. Provide a copy and mark it as 
> experimental. See how well it used and then if the advantages are 
> compelling to more people, some might take the initiative to move us 
> to a distributed SCM altogether.

People request all sorts of things.  In my mind the pain of backups, 
jobs, storage and dealing with hg, bzr and mercurial people wanting the 
same thing vastly out weighs the benefit (which I'm still unclear of)  
Additionally on the list it was determined if someone else wanted to 
host this, we can make access to the raw cvs repo easier.

> Nobody wants to work on the hard
>> problem, thus nothing gets done, no matter /who/ wants it.
>
> Has the Fedora Board recognized that moving to a distributed SCM is 
> desirable for downstream folks and asked Fedora infrastructure to work 
> on that or indicated in any way that this is the future direction?  I 
> think this is one of the instances where the Fedora Board should take 
> on a more active role.

To date no one has had the combination of vision, persistence and just 
plain craziness to put together a comprehensive plan, propose it to the 
list, put a proof of concept together, and then convince people it's 
what we need.  This is no small task and since CVS is working (we are 
putting in source and getting RPM's somehow), it could likely be some 
time before it happens.

    -Mike




More information about the advisory-board mailing list