Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Jim Meyering wrote: >> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> tried this, its not an easy task. But adding an additional SCM for >>> GIT which is JUST a copy of what's in CVS sounds like a waste of our >>> resources. Why not also do SVN, BZR and Mercurial? >> >> IMHO, they're not as useful. > > And thats the real trick, I'd imagine the mercurial, svn and bzr guys > would disagree with you. > >> If Fedora doesn't want to do this, I can probably set up >> something independent and provide public git:// access. > > If someone else wants to host it I'm all for it, we can certainly make > it easier to get at the raw CVS repo. If the other officers disagree > please let it be known, but this sounds more like a distraction/one > off then something that adds value to our infrastructure. At 5GB+, (4.5GB for a copy of the cvs repo + 700MB for git) that's too heavy for me. And besides, it'd really be better under the Fedora umbrella. Seeing as how much more efficient the git protocol is, if a few people switch to it from cvs, it'd actually decrease network bandwidth requirements. Is there anything I can do to revive this idea? For example, I'd be happy to own and set up the tools/infrastructure required to make it all work (I've already done this on three public servers). All I'd need is an open git port and access to the config files. Jim _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list Fedora-infrastructure-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list
