On Fri, 23 Jan 2004, Bryce Harrington wrote:
I would like to propose that if when SF CVS returns, we do not have adequate confidence that they'll be highly stable, that we then proceed with a plan to shift to a different CVS provider.
There are many different alternatives to consider for CVS providers, each with their own pros and cons. If we go this route I suggest we assemble a set of requirements we would have for a provider, and then judge various options against them.
Bryce
Assuming the lack of comment simply indicates general assent, I think we should proceed with this proposal.
At this time, while SourceForge has returned to service, it is very flaky and unstable, nor does anyone I speak to have confidence that this is likely to change in the near to mid term.
Therefore, I would recommend that we begin to develop a plan to change to a new CVS provider, with the objective of changing to that provider within a month.
The next step is to enumerate our requirements for provisioning. After that, we should assemble a list of possible providers and judge which looks like it will fit our needs best.
This present change will restrict itself to changing only CVS, not our mail, web, or bug tracking services; those other services are working adequately at this time. However, we may wish to convert those as well, so should consider the ability of providers to host additional services too.
Further, there is some interest in being able to consider alternatives to CVS in the future. For this change we will limit the scope to migrating to regular CVS rather than other VCS. However, we should judge providers' ability and willingness to host other systems such as mcvs, arch, et al, so that we will gain the flexibility of being able to try out other systems in the future if we need to.
If you have inputs regarding requirements or possible providers, or other issues that should be addressed before proceeding with this, please share at this time. I will post a list of requirements for review some time this week.
Bryce