On Saturday 09 February 2008 22:51, Christopher Browne wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 4:58 PM, Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I wonder if the efforts to provide mirrors for many different systems can
> > hurt later down the road. It is pretty obvious that amost every current
> > system has options to convert from or to mirror a CVS repository. But
> > what if we someday really want to use something else as the master
> > repository? Are we ready to accept losing unsupported mirrors at that
> > time, or will that actually influence the choice (I think that it should
> > not ... but I can hear the outcry already).
>
> The primary reason for a "hue and cry" to happen would require several
> prerequisites:
>
> 0. An SCM would be chosen to replace CVS. Let us identify it as SCM1
>
> 1. The ones hueing and crying would have chosen an SCM, SCM2, that
> was different from SCM1, and, furthermore, one where there isn't any
> "tailor"[1] available to permit translation of patches between them.
> (I'm not sure that any of the options that people are thinking about
> *aren't* on tailor's supported list...)
>
> 2. There is a further requirement for this lead to a "hue and cry"
> that needs to be listened to, namely that some complex and
> non-migratable processes have been set up that depend on SCM2.
>
> I think we can avoid this by declaring up front that its a Really Dumb
> Idea to set up complex processes that depend on a particular
> alternative SCM without the nice big fat caveat that "The PGDG has not
> committed to migrating to any particular SCM at this time. Depend on
> such at your peril!"
>
Would a pre-requisite for any new SCM to be anointed as *the* new SCM that the
buildfarm can be reconfigured to run with it? Unless there is an SCM2CVS
option available I suppose... how many SCM's support such a thing?
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL