OPENCORES.ORG

Jai Dhar <jai.dhar@g...> wrote:

I'll ask the web admin to start with integration of SVN. I don't promise 
anything. But the plan is to go slowly and implement SVN as an option to the 
CVS, so both would be available. This will require changes to the many parts 
of the web site, so it will take 2 months or so.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jai Dhar" <jai.dhar@g...>
To: "Discussion list about free open source IP cores" <cores@o...>
Sent: Friday, April 14, 2006 6:06 PM
Subject: Re: [oc] kindly convert opencores cvs repository to subversion 
(svn)

I agree, doing everything at once is bad - and I didn't ever advocate
that, I was merely speaking on the advantages of SVN. I also think
having two repositories is bad. Why not setup a test repository for
people to get used to? They can even move their own projects if they
like. I don't think getting everyone to move their own projects will
work (too messy), but in the meantime, while people are getting used
to SVN, duplicate the CVS repo. into SVN. Then, when people are ready,
just point to the new location.

 I'm not an expert on how to handle IT admin. stuff like this, so
that's just one suggestion. But I do feel that you shouldn't hinder
the introduction of a new and very beneficial technology when the only
deterrant is inconvenience. If there were other detractors, like
speed, complexity, cost etc.., then I would say convenience would play
a part. But that's not the case with SVN.

 I guess it also comes down to two camps of thinking; those who feel
that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and the opposite.. always
pushing to the bleeding edge. Personally, I would like to think that
somewhere in the middle is where I am - I waited a while for SVN to
mature, and I tried it out even though CVS wasn't "broke". It only
increased my productivity, which is always a good thing IMO.

End of philosophical rant :)

On 4/14/06, Gyorgy 'nog' Jeney <nog@s...> wrote:
> Jai Dhar <jai.dhar@g...> wrote:
> > I don't think anyone has ever regretted the move to SVN; I did it with
> > my repository, and haven't regretted it a single moment. I would say
> > the biggest advantage is doing away with tagging/branching, and
> > replacing that concept with moving/copying of directories. Also,
> > regarding web admin., SVN (unlike CVS), is designed for the web in the
> > first place, so it integrates well with Apache. My repository is
> > located here - http://via.dynalias.org/svn
> > This is both the URL that you can get via the web, or an SVN client -
> > very simple. As you can see, the interface is very dry and simple, but
> > it supports XML, so you can design whatever interface you want and
> > display whatever info.
> >
> >  The move from CVS to SVN will take some time on the repository side;
> > there are scripts that help you do the move, but with something as
> > large as opencores, I'm not sure how well it would work out. Either
> > way, I sincerely hope the switch is made at some point.
>
> I'm all for SVN but what you're asking for, with this mass conversion, is 
> to
> pull the rug out from right under everyones feet, which is _very_ 
> impolite,
> causes unecessary confusion, anoyment and anger (think: `What did you do 
> with my
> repo?!?!).  Remember: "element of least surprise" should (mostly) be the 
> number
> one criteria.
>
> nog.
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores
>

--
Open-source hardware at http://www.fps-tech.net
_______________________________________________
http://www.opencores.org/mailman/listinfo/cores 