From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13451 invoked by alias); 10 Dec 2002 01:05:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13429 invoked from network); 10 Dec 2002 01:05:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO brown.csi.cam.ac.uk) (131.111.8.14) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Dec 2002 01:05:45 -0000 Received: from student.cusu.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.179.82] helo=kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk ident=mail) by brown.csi.cam.ac.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18LYqD-0003iK-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:05:41 +0000 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 18LYpy-0001t1-00; Tue, 10 Dec 2002 01:05:26 +0000 Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2002 17:10:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" X-X-Sender: To: Walter Landry cc: Subject: Re: source mgt. requirements solicitation In-Reply-To: <20021209.164325.21937095.wlandry@ucsd.edu> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00490.txt.bz2 On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Walter Landry wrote: > Anonymous access requires for HTTP + WebDAV (no DeltaV). However, the > set of WebDAV commands needed are much smaller than what subversion > needs. It just needs whatever anonymous ftp has that http doesn't (I > believe PROPFIND is one). In particular, you can run a server using > apache 1.3. I'm sure some "transparent" proxies will fail to pass even that (though WebDAV may be better supported by them than DeltaV). This is similar to Zack's first point - just as any new system must be no less portable to running on different systems, it must be no less portable to working through networks restricted in different ways. > I have a feeling that you are thinking of how CVS handles things, with > a centralized server. Part of the whole point of arch is that there > is no centralized server. So, for example, I can develop arch > independently of whether Tom thinks that I am worthy enough to do so. > I can screw up my archive as much as I want (and I have), and Tom can > be blissfully unaware. Easy merging is what makes this possible. > > So you don't, in general, have a repository that is writeable by more > than one person. For GCC there clearly needs to be some server that has the mainline of development we advertise on our web pages for users, from which release branches are made, which has some vague notions of the machine being securely maintained, having adequate bandwidth, having some backup procedure, having maintainers for the server keeping it up reliably, having a reasonable expectation that the development lines in there will still be available in 20 years' time when current developers have lost interest. (gcc.gnu.org presents a remarkably good impression of this to the outside world, considering how it operates purely by volunteer effort.) There may be many other servers - private and public - but some server provides the line of development that gets branched into new releases, and inevitably multiple people may write to that line. (I'm also presuming - see - that all the developments in any third party repository that get discussed on the lists should be mirrored into this main one to give some hope of long term survival and availability. In developing GCC with list archives and version control we are simultaneously acting as curators of the history of GCC development, which means attempting to preserve that history for posterity (a period beyond the involvement of any one individual).) -- Joseph S. Myers jsm28@cam.ac.uk