[lm-sensors] CVS vs. Subversion

[lm-sensors] CVS vs. Subversion

[Jean Delvare]

Hi all,

We now have two different pairs of repositories for our i2c and
lm_sensors development trees: the old CVS ones and the new Subversion
ones. This is a bit confusing as to where we are supposed to commit our
changes.

So I'd suggest that we all switch to using the new Subversion
repositories for development. If possible, we could turn the (i2c and
lm_sensors2) CVS repositories read-only so as to make sure that nobody
commits there anymore.

I will be checking all patches which just went into Linux 2.6.15-git3
and backport everything which needs to be, so I'd like a decision to be
taken quickly, before I do. I'd hate my work to be lost in a repository
resync.

BTW, do we really need a Subversion repository for the 7 year old
lm_sensors (not 2) project? Having it hanging around is probably adding
to confusion, and I see no benefit in even mentionning it on our new
website. So I'd suggest that we don't convert this repository to
Subversion at all, and that we drop all references to it.

Thanks,
-- 
Jean Delvare

[lm-sensors] CVS vs. Subversion

[Axel Thimm]

Hi,

On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 11:55:22AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> We now have two different pairs of repositories for our i2c and
> lm_sensors development trees: the old CVS ones and the new Subversion
> ones. This is a bit confusing as to where we are supposed to commit our
> changes.

CVS is still the production repo, trac & svn are in testing phase.

> So I'd suggest that we all switch to using the new Subversion
> repositories for development. If possible, we could turn the (i2c and
> lm_sensors2) CVS repositories read-only so as to make sure that nobody
> commits there anymore.

Well, I haven't received even one ssh key for enabling svn write
access :/

> I will be checking all patches which just went into Linux 2.6.15-git3
> and backport everything which needs to be, so I'd like a decision to be
> taken quickly, before I do. I'd hate my work to be lost in a repository
> resync.

I suggest to commit to CVS, then decide on what to migrate to svn and
whether the chosen paths are OK that way. (Re)migrating from CVS to
svn isn't an issue.

> BTW, do we really need a Subversion repository for the 7 year old
> lm_sensors (not 2) project? Having it hanging around is probably adding
> to confusion, and I see no benefit in even mentionning it on our new
> website. So I'd suggest that we don't convert this repository to
> Subversion at all, and that we drop all references to it.

OK.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.lm-sensors.org/pipermail/lm-sensors/attachments/20060107/740e2d03/attachment.bin

[lm-sensors] CVS vs. Subversion

[Jean Delvare]

Hi Axel,

> On Sat, Jan 07, 2006 at 11:55:22AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > We now have two different pairs of repositories for our i2c and
> > lm_sensors development trees: the old CVS ones and the new Subversion
> > ones. This is a bit confusing as to where we are supposed to commit our
> > changes.
> 
> CVS is still the production repo, trac & svn are in testing phase.

Hm, OK, thanks for the clarification. I'll commit all my changes to the
CVS repositories then.

> Well, I haven't received even one ssh key for enabling svn write
> access :/

I just sent mine to you (in private).

-- 
Jean Delvare