From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14236 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2010 16:53:47 -0000 Mailing-List: contact zsh-workers-help@zsh.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk X-No-Archive: yes List-Id: Zsh Workers List List-Post: List-Help: X-Seq: 27837 Received: (qmail 26051 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2010 16:53:46 -0000 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on f.primenet.com.au X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received-SPF: pass (ns1.primenet.com.au: SPF record at benizi.com designates 64.130.10.15 as permitted sender) Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 12:53:39 -0400 (EDT) From: "Benjamin R. Haskell" To: Zsh Workers Subject: Re: SourceForge CVS down for the weekend, it looks like In-Reply-To: <733654e31003270902s7076ef9dxdc17e0ea6e59b987@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <100326203425.ZM29478@torch.brasslantern.com> <733654e31003270902s7076ef9dxdc17e0ea6e59b987@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.01 (LNX 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Wayne Davison wrote: > On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote: > > > > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/sourceforge/2010/03/25/cvs-outage-2010-03-25/ > > > > It appears to be back now (was working for me). See: > > http://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/sourceforge/2010/03/27/cvs-viewvc-are-back-on-line-2010-03-27/ > > It would be cool to switch from CVS to git (which has better > high-availability support than CVS), Really? I'm a huge fan of git, but if the SF git server were to go down, how is it any different than the SF CVS server going down? Assuming the goal isn't to move away from having an 'official' repository, the only difference obvious to me is that you'd be able to work offline (i.e. still commit changesets to be pushed later). But, the same is true when working off of the (unofficial?) git mirror. I'm definitely *not* saying "Stay with CVS!". Just curious about the better availability justification. > [... trimmed other transition-related concerns ...] -- Best, Ben