Follow-up Comment #3, sr #106612 (project administration):
> The thread you mentioned starts with some kind of bug report (about a
CVS->bzr mirror??) and mentions git. Is this serious?
Yes, it's serious. The thread goes through many twists and turns. Git is
involved in the conversion process from CVS to bzr, but that detail doesn't
matter here.
(I don't know what message you saw as the start of the thread; the candidates
I see are not bug reports about a CVS->bzr mirror... but don't worry about it.
My job here is to make it unnecessary for you to dive into the thread(s). :-)
)
The sftp method is slower than having bzr installed on the server; also, the
latter is necessary to run server-side hooks (which we'd want to do for commit
emails). I'm just a bzr user, by the way, not at all an expert. To find out
those things about sftp, I went and asked in #bzr on irc.freenode.net :-).
(Someone there, more knowledgeable about bzr than I, has volunteered to help
you, incidentally. I don't want to paste his email address into a public bug
report, but contact me privately -- kfogel {AT} red-bean.com -- if you'd like
his contact info.)
I don't know if anyone is currently using the
http://arch.savannah.gnu.org/archives/emacs/bzr/ branch; I don't think we're
going to be using it for the "real" conversion, though.
If Savannah is truly stuck on bzr 1.5, then maybe I should go talk to
Alioth?
More broadly: I'm not quite clear on the relationship between Savannah and
GNU Projects. The decision to switch to bzr comes ultimately from RMS; does
that mean we can assume Savannah will put non-trivial effort into this, or
should we not assume that?
(No judgement is implied in the question, by the way; I just want to
understand the situation.)
Thanks,
-Karl
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/support/?106612>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
