[isabelle-dev] [Fwd: SourceForge.net CVS Migration and Downtime Announcement]

[Gerwin Klein]

Makarius wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008, Gerwin Klein wrote:
> 
>> While we're at it: what is the general feeling towards migrating the AFP 
>> to svn?
>>
>> (Mercurial would be nicer, but sourceforge offers only CVS and SVN).
>>
>> pro: more flexible, renaming of directories, better handling of branches,
>>      "atomic" commits
>> con: we need to migrate
> 
> My feeling is that converting *to* SVN is about two years late.  Many 
> projects are already moving away *from* SVN, to Git or Mercurial.
> 
> Did you check 
> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MercurialHosting ? The 
> Repository host need not coincide with the webspace, if you worry about 
> the afp.sf.net URL.  There are also some hacks to make it work with 
> SourceForge 
> http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/wiki/index.cgi/MercurialOnSourceforge but 
> this is probably not quite what the hoster expects.

I'm not really comfortable with using repository hacks on the SF web space. 
They are more and more restricting access to it and we've already gotten a 
quota increase from them (making an even bigger one less likely).

Off-site hosting might be an idea, but one of the original reasons to choose 
SF was low admin overhead (adding new users etc), while still getting general 
accessibility, large-scale data replication, automated backups etc. If we 
start spreading out at least the overhead will increase.

The general feeling seems to range from "no need" (most) to "why not/keen" 
(some) to "let's do more".

Taking into account that I don't really have a lot of time at the moment to do 
the migration, I'd rather wait until they support Mercurial properly and then 
move there directly (unless we run into major hassles with CVS in the meantime).

Cheers,
Gerwin