Chuck Esterbrook wrote:
>> SF CVS kind of sucks. Well, "kind of" is a bit of an
>> understatement. There remains the option of moving to w4py's svn
>> server, or ask python-hosting.com to host a subversion repository
>> (they'd might be able to maintain it a bit better than we could,
>> and they advertise free svn and Trac hosting to Python projects).
> Okay, it's definitely time to move. Besides the past couple of
> months, SF has had CVS problems at other times as well.
> I have a preference for svn over cvs, but could live with cvs if
> developers demand it. Although it sounds like Ian prefers svn, so
> that makes 2 of us.
> I don't have a preference for where it's hosted as long as it works.
> If we used w4py's server, who would maintain it? In other words, who
> would be the svn admin?
"We" would, for some value of "we". I've got it set up now on
http://svn.w4py.org, so a fair amount of the management is just Apache
management (e.g., user accounts). Hopefully it won't require much
maintenance; generally I've had good luck as long as I don't try to
point two services at the same repository (e.g., Trac or ViewCVS and
Apache), though even that seems to work better than it used to
(especially if they all run as the same user).
We have root on that machine; I'm not sure who all is active (for some
value of "active") in maintenance... right now Jason, myself, and Chuck
have sudo access to root, and Eric has access to the Webware user. We
can also expand that easily enough.
> Also, would non-developers still get anon access?
Yes, it's set up that way by default. You can also use standard Apache
access rules to give access just to subtrees.
Ian Bicking / ianb@... / http://blog.ianbicking.org