Plans for SVN infrastructure shutdown

Ben Cooksley bcooksley at
Sun Jan 20 22:51:17 GMT 2013

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 9:09 AM, Luigi Toscano <luigi.toscano at> wrote:
> Ben Cooksley wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 2:28 AM, Oliver Henshaw
>> <oliver.henshaw at> wrote:
>>> On 4 January 2013 10:31, David Faure <faure at> wrote:
>>>> The plan seems OK, except for the very last step, "final shutdown".
>>>> Please keep around, readonly.
>>>> [...] so if we could just keep a readonly svn
>>>> around (surely this shouldn't require much maintainance), it would be useful
>>>> for archeology purposes.
>>> It would also be very useful to keep links active - so
>>> that commit notifications in old bugzilla reports remain useful.
>> WebSVN will be shutdown, and the subdomain removed from DNS.
>> This also happened for back when KDE migrated from cvs to svn.
> But it's not the same situation.
> For what I remember, even if I was not an active contributor at that time, the
> new svn repository basically matched the content of the old one; moreover, the
> structure was a bit different at that time. This is not the case with git,
> where for example we would lose the content of unmaintaned (which is somehow
> hidden). What if someone would like to continue a project from there?

They will need to migrate the old project to Git first, before being
able to make new commits to it.
It is not necessary to keep WebSVN alive to still allow the repository
content to be accessed.

> Also, even if non migrated projects in extragear and playground will be kept,
> the lost of history does not sound good (same reasons as before, also because
> it would make it impossible to solve problems related, for example, with
> licensing or relicensing, should they arise).

No loss of history will occur, the full Subversion repository will
remain accessible via svn://.

>> It should not be a problem to extract the revision from either the url
>> or Bugzilla comment and use that to access the svn repository.
>> The svn repository will be kept online in a read-only state for the
>> most part, accessible via svn://.
> But the final plan is to completely shut down it. If it can be changed to a
> single, read only svn:// instance it would be better, imho.

In case it was not already clear - svn:// access will be the only part
of Subversion which will be retained.
(Translation infrastructure is not affected by the above).

> Ciao
> --
> Luigi

Ben Cooksley
KDE Sysadmin

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list