Conversion to SVN

[Ulrich Spörlein]

On Sat, 2011-10-08 at 11:20:53 +0100, Simon L. B. Nielsen wrote:
> 
> On 7 Oct 2011, at 15:13, Ulrich Spörlein wrote:
> 
> > What I, personally, would like to see is us using the same svn repo as
> > src. That means we would have to stop svn.freebsd.org for the
> > conversion, turn off email sending, dump 50k revisions into it (under
> > /doc and /www perhaps? where should branches/tags end up?), then turn
> > everything back on.
> 
> The advantages of having one repo need to be significant as the
> disadvantages are certainly there. For svn to perform in the current
> setup all of the repo basically need to fit into RAM - one large repo
> makes this harder as we can't split on multiple servers as needed
> later.

I doubt that the 650MB of doc/www repo will make a difference here. If
they do, consider me volunteering to buy 2-4GB RAM for the servers this
is running on.

By the current growth rate, this 650MB drop will only shorten the time
till it grows too large (whatever that may be) about a year or so. It
doesn't double the size or anything.

svn repo size around May 2010: 4419MB
svn repo size now: 6216MB

So do you really think that a 10% bump will spell the end of the world?
There's no point in splitting load 10:1 ...

> Also, please think of ports - I really doubt src and ports will fit
> into same repo nicely...

As I stated earlier, I'm not advocating moving ports into the same repo.
I'm not that crazy ...

> I'm not really sure where you would fit doc into the current repo...
> head/ etc. is on the top level.

/doc and /www would be the obvious choices. Ed even jokingly (??) said
we should just rename /head to /src ... not sure I concur.

Uli