Savannah Administration - News: GNU Arch Support

Nested Flat Threaded No Comments

Show 25 Show 50 Show 75 Show 100

Any updates? (posted by Paul D. Smith, Sat 05 Nov 2005 03:12:43 PM UTC)

n/c

RE: Any updates? (posted by Andy Tai, Tue 22 Nov 2005 03:31:33 PM UTC)

Hi, as the current maintainer of GNU Arch, I hope savannah can support GNU Arch soon. Andy

RE: Any updates? (posted by Sylvain Beucler, Fri 25 Nov 2005 09:25:31 AM UTC)

Michael J. Flickinger is working on a patch for sftp to provided a non-erasable sftp account, suitable for collaborative work. In the meantime, I work on the Savannah structure to allow new services.

RE: Any updates? (posted by Paul D. Smith, Mon 28 Nov 2005 08:13:58 AM UTC)

I wonder if it's really necessary to provide >32 groups per user in the first phase.  Surely the number of developers who are members of that many projects is fairly limited.  Can't we have a rollout of the basic infrastructure for most people now, at least for testing, while this # of groups issue is worked on behind the scenes?

RE: Any updates? (posted by Sylvain Beucler, Mon 28 Nov 2005 02:51:13 PM UTC)

Yes - because the backend will yeld errors because of it, and working around that would be another job. (plus there are 2 groups per users, web and sources, so consider the problem to be "16 Savane projects per user") But that particular issue is reasonably fixed now (I need to automate the patching in the event of a security upgrade, but that can wait and be done manually for now). I'm currently working on actually implementing the structure now, and begin to be pretty confident with a near future availability. mjflick also wants to stress his sftp patch some more so there's no security issue.

Generic http repository support (posted by Pavel Roskin, Tue 04 Oct 2005 08:08:54 PM UTC)

What if you simply provide an area that can be accessed over http read-only and over sftp or scp read-write?  That would allow arch, git, mercurial and probably some other version control systems. I'm afraid arch a poor choice as the only supported distributed version control system.  It's essentially abandoned by everybody including its author Tom Lord.

RE: Generic http repository support (posted by Sylvain Beucler, Sat 08 Oct 2005 10:06:02 PM UTC)

For this specific issue we get a few problems: - We're working on a more generic way to support SCMs, and we hit the Debian limit of 32 groups per user. We're working on it. - If we provide a simple sftp account then everybody can remove the project history; we don't want that because 1) we want source code to stay available even if, say, a piece of software decide to go proprietary and remove existing Savannah sources; 2) project admins won't like intentional or unintentional repository irremediable deletion/corruption by new project members. - supporting rapidly changing SCMs requires quite some time, be it for tasks as simple as providing ArchZoom, or upgrading your monotone databases. 'Mature' or 'stable' SCMs require less time.

Update (posted by Sylvain Beucler, Mon 29 Aug 2005 06:59:16 PM UTC)

We're indeed far behind this 'deadline' :) Arch induced a discussion about seting up a more maintainable Savannah setup. It also revealed some odd issues that comes with people being member of more than 32 groups. The best way to follow the development of Savannah is to read savannah-hackers-public@gnu.org. Why not cogito? Probably in the future. We're concerned, btw, that SCM hosted at Savannah provide a way to sign commits, and  that people should not be given total control over the source repository (so nobody can delete its history). Afaics cogito only works on top of 'full-control' write acces doesn't it? Or is a client-server protocol developed? cogito is also in development. With CVS, we can stick to Debian stable's version and stop worrying about it. With cogito, we'd have to follow closely the development, which requires TIME :/

RE: Update (posted by Paul D. Smith, Wed 07 Sep 2005 09:27:02 PM UTC)

Re: arch vs cogito: I don't much care about this.  As long as the tool selected is one of the "new generation" of tools which provide for change sets (instead of per-file) and fully support versioned directories I'm happy.  Local trees is nice but not really that important to me. I think GIT/Cogito need a little more "seasoning" before they're ready for a full deployment.  The whole concept behind committing back to the central store is a little fluid; there's no hard and fast way to do it.  However, it can be done over a SSH link, just like CVS.  I don't know what the situation would be for signing beyond using SSH.  I don't think you need to give "full control write access" if I understand what you're saying.  If you're interested in this you should probably join the cogito mailing list and ask them: I'm sure you'd get lots of good info and suggestions.

Updates? (posted by Paul D. Smith, Mon 29 Aug 2005 05:03:34 PM UTC)

Any updates on this?  It's been almost three weeks.  I know everyone is busy.  I'd really, really like to have this (I don't care arch vs. git/cogito; whatever as long as it's a more modern, changeset-style tool with full element rename/remove support). Is there a migration plan for existing project?  Can we test it out with a sample conversion of the CVS archive before we decide if we want to go "for real"? Is there someplace else (a mailing list or something) I should be following/reading/asking/helping if I'm interested in this?

git support (posted by Joshua Nathaniel Pritikin, Thu 25 Aug 2005 09:05:27 AM UTC)

What about support for git / cogito?

RE: git support (posted by Michael J. Flickinger, Tue 08 Nov 2005 08:23:03 PM UTC)

No.  Savannah can not support every versioning system.  That's merely ludicrous.

 

Copyright © 2024 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.
The Levitating, Meditating, Flute-playing Gnu logo is a GNU GPL'ed image provided by the Nevrax Design Team.
Page source code