Re: [Sbcl-devel] VCS on SF (Re: Version Control Systems)

[Thomas F. B. <tf...@oc...>]

On 5/6/07, William Harold Newman <wil...@ai...> wrote:
> Those are all good things to think about, and I don't see anything
> missing except the "if we stay on SF, how does the VCS work in messy
> reality there" issue --- partly addressed by your remark that svn is
> the only one on SF, but I'm still wondering how well svn is being
> administered there.

Browsing through their documentation, it looks like--true to
form--they've changed the URLs to the repositories at least once.  But
at least superficially, I see a big green light in their using https
URLs to access the repository, in a way that makes anonymous read-only
access a non-issue -- no special hoops for them or users to jump
through to keep it up and in sync, as long as SF can keep their
apaches functioning correctly.  And of course, as has already been
mentioned, svn has transactions, so any future mirroring that could
occur will always get reasonable views of the repository.

If SBCL switches to svn, I'd highly recommend adopting some firm
conventions for its use, because although I've had very positive
experiences with it, I've also followed strict conventions in its use;
it doesn't really provide any structure, so tags, branches,
whathaveyou, are all just conventions.  I could see it being a
nightmare if two different developers started doing things
differently, although the SBCL developers are disciplined enough that
I wouldn't expect this to come up.