[PD-dev] CVS/SVN @ iem (was Re: [GEM-dev] CVS...)

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006, Mathieu Bouchard wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, 9 May 2006, geiger wrote:
>>
>>> AFAIK there are currently no concrete offers, but IEM is a candidate. We

the good thing about hosting it at the iem would be the consistent user 
database: we could use the already existing accounts at 
puredata.info/puredata.org to grant (write) access to a subversion 
repository.
personally i am a big fan of as little different passwords as possible.
i found a "Plone SVN access" product at 
http://plone.org/products/plone-svn-access, which seems to be pretty 
what i expected of such a thing. it would need a major upgrade of the 
puredata-portal though (plone-2.1 is required while we are still running 
plone-2.0)


>>
>>> It only solves the problem if svn on sourceforge is more stable than
>>> CVS.

i guess(!) that sf's cvs-hardware (i suspect the harddisks) just died 
all the approximately the same time because they were of the same age 
(probably the same charge?).
additionally i guess that the svn-hardware is brandnew and will take 
some time to degrade to uselessness (well, even brandnew hw can jump out 
of the window and die)

>>
>> People on the tcl-core list are afraid that other services than CVS could
>> stop working in the future.

i am afraid that austria will get another right-wing government at the 
next elections - but i don't expect anybody to care....

>>
>>> It would have to be a dezentralized system such as monotone
>>> http://www.venge.net/monotone/, git (http://git.or.cz/) or GNU arch
>>> (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-arch/) in order to really affect the
>>> problem that we have with sourceforge.
>>
>> Decentralised systems deal with the problem of outages in general, they
>> don't deal with the problem of sourceforge in particular vs another host
>> in particular.

indeed. but the problem we are experiencing is really about 
centralization rather than sourceforge - they just happen to be the one. 
any other centralized repository could have a service-failure as well 
otoh, if i (or matju) was the one who runs the failed central server, 
chances are high that we spend our time with getting the system running 
again instead of ranting on people who are trying to the the system 
running again. the system to restore might be a lot smaller and thus be 
online faster.

>>> Our main problem currently is that, for whatever reason, sourceforge
>>> doesn't keep up with its maintainance. If we move to something different
>>> we should make sure that this gets better.

how can you guarantee this without paying someone to do the job? (or 
taking it granted that some other institution like ucsd, iem or 
artengine are willing to pay for this)

>> Yes. In particular it's nice if enough people have enough privileges on
>> the machine so that we can fix problems ourselves.

> But this also means that we _have to_ fix things ourselves, which isn't 
> really such a good thing.  The goal is to improve service, not just move 

i can only second that

> off of SourceForge.  And tto find out how to do that will take some 
> research.  Berlios sounds like a good option to research.
> 

i think this is really important: we do have to evaluate before 
switching to any other service.
and if we do decide to host it ourselves (whoever), we have to evaluate 
even more, to provide a stable, fast and happy system 
(sourceforge/savannah/berlios/... have done this already)


mfg.adsr.
IOhannes