Jeff Garland wrote:
One possibility would be to have OSL just host a CVS server, and see whether that clears up most of the problems.
It's an interesting suggestion to try out CVS at OSL -- it would carry far less risk and could serve as a stepping stone to SVN at OSL. It would be very easy to go back if it went wrong.
I doubt that CVS at OSL will bring more benefit that CVS at SF. We might get more performance, but SF's performance is not so bad for me.
It's not like it's a gratuitous switch with no obvious benefits. I think anybody who's taken a look at SVN can see that there are definitely improvements over CVS.
While I agree there are likely benefits, it doesn't come without significant cost and risk that isn't really focused on our main mission (see my other posts).
We have 86 'committers' listed on the SF page and we've really only heard the opinions of a few -- mostly me and Dave. I'm certain that it's time for me to shut up now and listen to others ;-)
I'd like Subversion, for sure. When we wanted move Boost.Build V1 and V2 to different directories, this was nontrivial -- including writing some script and passing a request to SF staff. And I'd like to move some more files... I think the only problematic part could be CVS -> SVN conversion script. If the scripts runs OK and we verify the converted repository, there should be no problems. I was using Subversion for more that year (Apache + Berkeley DB) and there were no problems. - Volodya