Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:29949
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 64.233.166.178 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Status: bad
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=beta;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=VtQ4sRHCOngSSfBJeV80JTjQrwXzYqBKVq+MZ404ChpPJH0eeNAmzHtYGKexd9X5gJXUAYmPc7aP6y3+SIA9aLGb6HPPGzelQpVr+FCGxaf3Gov6Jzo/7pnnswZ2p1dl6SVyvewnKR1yS/ok2cI3rYCuC1EJnts1hHY1zEYP864=
Message-ID: <4e89b4260705300409n3feafa10nc2e8c19b6b9e5b64@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 07:09:50 -0400
To: "Steph Fox" <steph@zend.com>
Cc: "Rasmus Lerdorf" <rasmus@lerdorf.com>, "Marcus Boerger" <helly@php.net>, 
	"Andi Gutmans" <andi@zend.com>, 
	"Ilia Alshanetsky" <ilia@prohost.org>, 
	"Edin Kadribasic" <edin@krug.dk>, 
	"PHP Internals List" <internals@lists.php.net>
In-Reply-To: <016d01c7a299$4ef91070$39dc2f52@foxbox>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4e89b4260705280856t47429e54ofcc182e02a6627e5@mail.gmail.com>
	 <465CFFF8.7070603@lerdorf.com>
	 <698DE66518E7CA45812BD18E807866CE3AFFA2@us-ex1.zend.net>
	 <001d01c7a27f$6d12bf80$39dc2f52@foxbox> <465D13E4.9050201@lerdorf.com>
	 <1237063851.20070530094541@marcus-boerger.de>
	 <465D2FB0.5060308@lerdorf.com> <014601c7a293$3e047440$39dc2f52@foxbox>
	 <465D35D2.4050001@lerdorf.com> <016d01c7a299$4ef91070$39dc2f52@foxbox>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] better changeset tracking
From: kingwez@gmail.com ("Wez Furlong")

On 5/30/07, Steph Fox <steph@zend.com> wrote:
> Given that this entire thread came about because at least two of the core
> team don't have time to deal with merging to HEAD, that doesn't seem very
> likely. But you're right to put an end to quick-fix and possibly
> cvs-specific solutions. Does svn even support validation scripting? Does
> anyone even know without checking?

The code to do the first part of what I described is just a bit perl,
or can be easily tweaked to perl, and run in our environment without
too much hassle.  It will be marginally cvs dependent, but less work
that making it work for svn; I think its totally worth it.

SVN does indeed support validation... how else do you think we
implement the checks I described earlier in the thread? :-)

> Lukas was onto a good thing with his idea of moving less challenging areas
> of the CVS repository to SVN first IMHO. It'll make the task of moving the
> difficult ones less horrendous, and it'll give some idea of the problems
> likely to be encountered in adoption (if any).

As Rasmus said, it's a job for someone to sit down with a copy of the
repository, cvs2svn, a lot of time, and a lot of patience, to make the
migration work... but we're not stopping anyone from volunteering :)

--Wez.