Re: [Refdb-devel] Re: [Refdb-users] CVS vs. Subversion

[Michael(tm) S. <sm...@si...>]

Markus Hoenicka <mar...@mh...> writes:

> I gather from this feedback that no one has to stick with CVS. I'll go
> ahead and migrate the CVS repository to Subversion in the near future.
>=20
> Before I do this, I'd like to clean up the repository a bit. Most
> important, I'd like to fold back the stable branch to the trunk as the
> latter has turned out to be sort of a dead end. But in order to do
> this cleanup, and in order to check my local changes I'll have to wait
> until the SourceForge CVS service online again. I'll let you know when
> the migration is done.

Note that SF has a "Site Status" page that they don't do a very
good job of advertising. There's a "Recent Updates" section on
that page that gives details about the CVS outage -

  http://sourceforge.net/docs/A04/#section1

Their estimate appears to be that they'll have the CVS service
available again late Tuesday night or early Wednesday morning.

The description of the "single point of failure" architecture of
the CVS service doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in the
long-term stability of the service. Even before this outage, it
has been pretty spotty all along anyway -- inaccessible
intermittently for short periods (and relatively long ones too).

Anyway, it definitely provides some additional incentive to move
to their Subversion service instead. Some wags have even suggested
that the outage was carefully planned to scare project admins away
=66rom the CVS service and over to the Subversion service (because
the CVS service is a drain on support resources and they want to
minimize the number of projects using it). I only wish I thought
they were quite that smart.

  --Mike