[Python-Dev] PEP: Migrating the Python CVS to Subversion

[Brett Cannon]

On 7/28/05, Barry Warsaw <barry at python.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-07-28 at 16:00, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I'd like to see the Python source be stored in Subversion instead
> > of CVS
> 
> +1
> 

+1 from me as well; single commit numbers for commits across multiple
files will be wonderful.

> > , and on python.org instead of sf.net.
> 
> +0
> 
> I know that SF has promised svn access to projects for a long time now,
> but I haven't heard anything from them in a long time.  It's listed
> under their "Strategic Projects" but the last update to that news item
> was back in April.  Question: do we wait for SF to make the service
> available (after getting more up-to-date status and a realistic
> timetable), or do we go straight to svn.python.org?
> 

I say forget SF and we move it.  Of course I won't be involved with
the migration so me saying this doesn't mean too much.  =)

>> 1. Assign passwords for all current committers for use on svn.python.org.
>>    User names on SF and svn.python.org should be identical, unless some
>>   committer requests a different user name.
>
>We've been going with firstname.lastname (with some exceptions -- hi
>Aahz! :) for the current svn access.  Is it better to stay with that
>convention or to maintain consistency with SF's CVS committer names?
>Maybe the latter for revision history consistency.

I say go with the first.last naming.  While this might put committer
names out of sync, we could keep a mapping of SF names to the new
names in developers.txt for easy referencing.  But it would be handy
to have actual name references since I know I don't always remember
who is whom on SF since some people go with nicks that are not based
on their name at all.

[SNIP]
> > 4. Convert the CVS repository into two subversion repositories,
> >    one for distutils and one for Python.
> 
> Do we also want to split off nondist and encodings?  IWBNI the Python
> source code proper weren't buried too deep in the directory structure.
> Note that we might want to provide different access permission to
> different parts of the repository (but I think we can do that even if we
> don't split those off into separate repos).
>

Seems like a reasonable thing.  Would make it easier for occasional
committers as well as people who check out the code just for
generating a patch.
 
-Brett