trac svn repository still runs on svn 1.3.1

[theultramage@…]

Could you consider updating already?

My main motivation is svk's

"Requires newer svn for replay support when mirroring to /."

message when I want to do a 1:1 mirror (so that revision numbers match).

[Noah Kantrowitz]

The better question is why do you need to mirror Trac repo?

[Emmanuel Blot]

Replying to nkantrowitz:

The better question is why do you need to mirror Trac repo?

I needed it some weeks ago, when I start developing the ​Revtree extension for svnmerge. I bumped into the very same issue, t.e.o. not running a 1.4.x SVN server.

However, I finally managed to get a copy of the t.e.o. repository with the SVK tools. In order to keep the same revision numbers, simply discard the first revision when you copy the repository. It is not an exact copy (as the initial revisions of the source and the mirror differ), but it is the best solution I found up to now.

As one answer to Noah's initial question: t.e.o. is a very good base to perform a lot of test with a prefilled repository, with many branches, many merge operations and last but not least many commit messages that contains Trac wikified references. It is quite hard to create a mock repository with so many real "use-cases" of SVN+Trac.

[Noah Kantrowitz]

I think a better solution to that particular problem would be making a dump of the repository available somehow (and possibly a sanitized version of the database).

[anonymous]

Replying to nkantrowitz:

I think a better solution to that particular problem would be making a dump of the repository available somehow (and possibly a sanitized version of the database).

Yeah, I'm not sure it is a better solution, as it would:

1. require to generate the archive on a regular basis
2. prevent from easily upgrading an existing mirror (and generate more traffic)
3. be very specific to this problem

OTOH, why "preventing" other sites or people from mirroring t.e.o. repository?

[theultramage]

​SVK uses a local-mirror paradigm instead of keeping only the current revision.

It allows me to perform LAN-speed 'svk log' and 'svk blame', bypassing major network traffic that svn causes (although perl::svk's blame is cpu intensive and slow as hell, that's why I use trac instead :). It also gets rid of all those annoying .svn directories. And finally, since the mirror is a svn repo, I can hook trac onto it directly.

Of course, as mentioned, I can also make a subdirectory and do a partial mirror, of trunk branch only, starting the mirror at the HEAD revision instead of revision 0. But that skews the numbering; I need to do a clean 1:1 dedicated mirror.

Why? It's ugly to do 'svk sync /trac/trac/', it breaks all revision references in commit messages, and to find out the original number of a certain revision I would have to do a tedious 'svk log | grep'.

Replay support server-side was added in subversion 1.4.0 and I think many people welcomed it. Previously it wasn't possible to achieve correct numbering without doing hacks like skipping revisions to maintain sync.

Thank you for reading.

[Christian Boos]

to theultramage and any other interested party: you should mail directly to JonasBorgstrom; even if he probably won't upgrade the Subversion server anytime soon, he can maybe allow rsync access for you (as he did it for me, and it works fine).

Odds are that if he gets flooded by such requests he will actually upgrade svn ;-)

[Jonas Borgström]

I rather not upgrade to subversion 1.4 just yet since the Linux distribution used on svn.edgewall.org currently ships with svn 1.3.

But people interested in mirroring the repository can contact me and I'll provide you with instructions on how to do this with rsync.

[anonymous]

please change version control to mercurial to avoid that mirror headache once and for all …

[Noah Kantrowitz]

Replying to anonymous:

please change version control to mercurial to avoid that mirror headache once and for all …

Can we say "Out of scope"?

[Emmanuel Blot]

Replying to nkantrowitz:

Can we say "Out of scope"?

Yes, we should ;-)
Although I hope the Linux distribution on t.e.o. is upgraded to a recent version of Subversion ASAP.

[Christian Boos]

(clearing report:35)