[nycbug-talk] a new direction for NYC*BUG

[Jesse Callaway]

On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Hans Zaunere <lists at zaunere.com> wrote:
>> > My two-cent vote would be for svn - easy access over HTTP/HTTPS, easy user
>> > management, GUIs/UIs, handles non-traditional code files (binary files, etc)
>> > out of the box.  I use it for config/systems management all the time (in
>> > addition to actual source code control).
>> >
>> > H
>>
>> The trick with a community repository is that you're really talking
>> about creating a bunch of independent repositories, rather than one
>> big one. Hans doesn't want me committing my sloppy code into his
>> project, I'm sure.
>
> But your code isn't THAT bad :)
>
>> So whatever you choose, make sure the administrative overhead of
>> creating new repositories and assigning commit rights is handled in an
>> elegant way. And if you need to invent that wheel, that's a great seed
>> project for the new repo. Nothing like eating your own dogfood...
>
> A single repository would probably suffice.  Subversion/Apache supports a solid permissions/authentication system.  Read and/or write permissions at a per directory level, plus a tie-in to Apache's mod_auth_mysql or whatever if needed.
>
> That said, this is likely all most people need, and very handy:
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.serverconfig.httpd.html
>
> see "Per-directory access control" header
>
> H
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk
>

I guess  if it's in CVS then the SVN people can just use SVN at home
and commit CVS. The same goes for git since it can talk to subversion.
So no big deal. The central shared repo can be whatever and people can
use whatever tools they're comfortable with.

-jesse