Re: Public Access to Perforce?

On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 12:06, Will Andrews wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 18, 2004 at 08:48:04AM -0700, Bruce A. Mah wrote:
> > As you pointed out later on, converting the entire repository is a
> > pretty big task, although I've heard several times about developers in
> > the Subversion community using the FreeBSD CVS repository as test data. 

Geez, did I really write that this morning?!?  Feels like it was at
least a couple days ago.

> That's mostly because it's extremely polluted.  Branch and tag
> names are mixed all over the place.  That doesn't sit well with
> the normal subversion tree style, due to name collisions.

In the normal subversion repository layout (and what's used by cvs2svn
by default), branches and tags live in two separate hierarchies, so I'm
not sure what kind of collisions you're talking about.

I could, however, picture repo-copies and vendor imports showing up in
fairly bizarre ways in the converted repository, maybe that's what you
were referring to?

> I know this because I tried to convert it to svn some time ago.
> FreeBSD's repository needs a slightly different svn repository
> layout than usual in order for it to work.  :-/
> 
> However, perhaps svn is not the best choice, in fundamental
> style.  As a diverse project, FreeBSD should support remote,
> loosely coupled repositories based on the main one.  I believe
> svn doesn't work well for that purpose.

That's an interesting question.  The usual reaction in the svn community
when presented with this point (needing distributed repositories) is
"use svk" but I know next to nothing about this tool.  (If I had time,
I'd JFGI, but...)

Cheers,

Bruce.