| 1 |
On Sat, 04 Oct 2014 11:02:30 +0200 |
| 2 |
Rémi Cardona <remi@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Le 04/10/2014 02:00, Rich Freeman a écrit : |
| 5 |
> > Rationale: |
| 6 |
> […] |
| 7 |
> 6. We've been (collectively) working with CVS history for more than a |
| 8 |
> decade now and that hasn't been a major issue (AFAICT). Maybe a |
| 9 |
> hindrance at times, but hardly more than that. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> In fact, is there a compelling reason to convert history to git? Can't |
| 12 |
> it just stay as a read-only CVS repo with webcvs? Or are we doing the |
| 13 |
> conversion for infra purposes (ie, stop the CVS service/maintenance |
| 14 |
> altogether)? |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> In any case, +1 for handling history separately, I know I won't mind |
| 17 |
> having to look elsewhere if I need it. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Cheers, |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Rémi |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Yes, Infra is looking to consolidate resource usage and simplify. |
| 26 |
Also for setting up resource mirrors for everything git. That will |
| 27 |
reduce the chance of a server outage taking down operations as there |
| 28 |
will still be another available. With sponsors and equipment changing, |
| 29 |
it will hopefully help reduce the maintenance load for the infra team as |
| 30 |
well. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |
Archives