Conversion to SVN

[Simon L. B. Nielsen]

On 8 Oct 2011, at 13:04, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:

> On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 11:20:53 +0100, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote:
>> 
>> On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
>> 
>>> What I, personally, would like to see is us using the same svn repo as
>>> src. That means we would have to stop svn.freebsd.org for the
>>> conversion, turn off email sending, dump 50k revisions into it (under
>>> /doc and /www perhaps? where should branches/tags end up?), then turn
>>> everything back on.
>> 
>> The advantages of having one repo need to be significant as the
>> disadvantages are certainly there. For svn to perform in the current
>> setup all of the repo basically need to fit into RAM - one large repo
>> makes this harder as we can't split on multiple servers as needed
>> later.
> 
> I doubt that the 650MB of doc/www repo will make a difference here.

OK, it's smaller than I recalled - so that part less not an issue for main servers.

>> Also, please think of ports - I really doubt src and ports will fit
>> into same repo nicely...
> 
> As I stated earlier, I'm not advocating moving ports into the same repo.
> I'm not that crazy ...

My main point was that if ports is still separate, I don't think we gain much by merging src and doc.

>> I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo...
>> head/ etc. is on the top level.
> 
> /doc and /www would be the obvious choices. Ed even jokingly (??) said

Well, that seems like a bit of a mess as you mainly have branches at that level...

> we should just rename /head to /src ... not sure I concur.

Considering we have stable etc. on the same level that seems like a bad thing to do...

Regardless, if it should be one repo (I'm still not convinced at all it buys us anything useful) Peter need to sign off on it and say it's the right way to go - at least for me to touch it.

-- 
Simon L. B. Nielsen