Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Karl Berry asked: >> The ChangeLog file is over a megabyte now, and I'm still stuck on dialup >> sometimes. Can we split it to, say, ChangeLog.1997-2006 and just keep >> 2007 in the active file? > > I believe that the size of the ChangeLog becomes insignificant once we switch > to 'git' as primary versioning system for gnulib. Jim, can you confirm this?
That's right, because most of the problematic (with cvs) commands don't even require access to the remote repository with git. And when you push changes to a remote repository, you're effectively transmitting only the deltas. > (My reasons to believe this and to trust 'git' more than 'cvs' are listed in > [1].) > [1] http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-cvs/2007-01/msg00018.html Wow. That is stunning. A good argument for upgrading any cvs servers you control. Or for switching to git. > What is holding up the switch to git, by the way? If no one objects to dropping CVS support, I'll be happy to switch now. But that would require a certain amount of hand-holding and updating FAQ/etc. telling people how to use git enough to "pull" (aka update), and how to prepare patches properly (which means explaining the basics of git topic branches), etc. Or, we could just say "use git!". The latest git documentation is much better than it was just a few months ago. The desire to retain CVS access (e.g., for Karl :-), and the fact that it will have to be via git-cvsserver to provide at least read-only pserver access, means I'll have to exercise a certain amount of due diligence, too. I'll have to set up something separate, test it, and then, once confident everything works the way we want, choose a nonstandard port on sv.gnu.org for use as the git-pserver port and set it up there. (the pserver port is already in use, of course).
