On 10/20/05, Joseph S. Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Oct 2005, Richard Guenther wrote: > > > If it is at all possible we should probably try to keep read-only CVS > > working > > (and up-to-date) for HEAD and release-branches. This will allow occasional > > contributors and technically-less-provided people to continue working in > > submit-patch mode or in regular testing without raising the barrier for > > them. > > Snapshots are available for FTP, have been available since before there > was anonymous CVS access and will continue to be available (I don't know > the exact status of the update of gcc_release to support subversion). > Snapshots provide a low-barrier access method for occasional contributors.
I agree that snapshots will work fine (and I just checked that we provide patches). > I don't think keeping the CVS repository up to date after the move to > subversion is worthwhile; it should of course remain available read-only > (changes disabled by making directories read-only and also preventing > commits in commitinfo / taginfo, plus anything else that helps to prevent > commits effectively) so old cvsweb URLs continue to work and people can > run "cvs diff" in modified working directories. Any means of keeping it > up to date would need to ensure that whatever hooks could commit to it > without leaving a window for any other commits, tags etc. to get it. If there are technical issues the trouble is probably not worth it. It might give some of us a more smooth transition though. Richard.
