Re: The essential problems of moving from CVS

["S.P.Zeidler" <spz%serpens.de@localhost>]

Hi Curt,

Thus wrote Curt Sampson (cjs%NetBSD.org@localhost):

> On 2010-01-12 16:23 +0000 (Tue), David Holland wrote:
> 
> > Yes, except that (1) since maintaining anoncvs is work, it's desirable
> > to be able to shut it down....
> 
> 1. Keeping a cvs pserver entry for port 2401 in /etc/inetd.conf is not
> much work at all. That's the only part of the anoncvs infrastructure we
> need to maintain.

I have the impression that your expectation what an anonymous cvs service
looks like has very little to do with reality and is hideously insecure,
too. Also, while we still offer pserver, it's a minority that use it,
and we could shut it down with much less impact than cvs-via-ssh.

> 2. If that really is too much work, it's safe to shut it down anyway,
> if we don't mind the bandwidth use of people pulling the full repo via
> rsync to look up something there.

.. and bandwidth is currently the ressource we're most likely to be
limited on.

> That's not my point: my point is, are you willing to switch back and
> forth between analysing the mechanics of some particular conversion
> and asking whether the project would ever want to do such a thing, or
> are you insistent that we must not even consider whether the project
> would use a new workflow and whether we need perfect history until we've
> determined that git, say, can preserve prefect history and actually
> written all of the code to do the conversion?

At present the 'research' was: "are there tools readily available with
which we can do a 'good enough' conversion?" (because it had been claimed
that there were lots of tools who would all do the job). The answer to
that, in short, is "no".

regards,
        spz
-- 
spz%serpens.de@localhost (S.P.Zeidler)