Difference between revisions of "Version control repository"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Rob Linden (talk | contribs) |
Rob Linden (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Linden Lab doesn't yet provide live access to a central revision control repository for the viewer source code. However, this is being considered. | Linden Lab doesn't yet provide live access to a central revision control repository for the viewer source code. However, this is being considered. | ||
Choices | == Request for proposals == | ||
Below is a request for proposals for public Subversion repository hosting. | |||
Requirements: | |||
* High capacity, high availability anonymous read access, with corresponding SLA | |||
* Direct user management by Linden Lab (self-service add/remove/disable accounts) | |||
* Self-service password changing for all individual account holders | |||
* Minimum 40GB capacity | |||
* Ability to completely delete rogue revisions within one business day | |||
* Nightly backups | |||
* Real-time read access to all raw Subversion data files via ssh/sftp or other secure | |||
Additional desirable features: | |||
* Integration with outside authentication system, either Kerberos or custom XML-RPC based system. | |||
** If relying on external authentication, user management still needed to provide authorization management | |||
Proposals being accepted through February 9, 2007. | |||
Please address responses to [mailto:robla@lindenlab.com Rob Lanphier at Linden Lab] | |||
== Choices considered == | |||
* [http://subversion.tigris.org/ Subversion] - default choice, and the obvious "safe" choice. Pros: familiar to us, used by a lot of people Cons: very centralized model; need to give people access to facilitate effective collaboration | * [http://subversion.tigris.org/ Subversion] - default choice, and the obvious "safe" choice. Pros: familiar to us, used by a lot of people Cons: very centralized model; need to give people access to facilitate effective collaboration | ||
* [http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/ Mercurial] - bleeding edge choice. Pros: Distributed model makes it easier for anyone to distribute patchsets off of the main codebase without needing a central host. Much easier to maintain a private branch. Cons: more complicated model, less familiar, much newer system | * [http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/ Mercurial] - bleeding edge choice. Pros: Distributed model makes it easier for anyone to distribute patchsets off of the main codebase without needing a central host. Much easier to maintain a private branch. Cons: more complicated model, less familiar, much newer system | ||
Revision as of 21:11, 2 February 2007
Linden Lab doesn't yet provide live access to a central revision control repository for the viewer source code. However, this is being considered.
Request for proposals
Below is a request for proposals for public Subversion repository hosting.
Requirements:
- High capacity, high availability anonymous read access, with corresponding SLA
- Direct user management by Linden Lab (self-service add/remove/disable accounts)
- Self-service password changing for all individual account holders
- Minimum 40GB capacity
- Ability to completely delete rogue revisions within one business day
- Nightly backups
- Real-time read access to all raw Subversion data files via ssh/sftp or other secure
Additional desirable features:
- Integration with outside authentication system, either Kerberos or custom XML-RPC based system.
- If relying on external authentication, user management still needed to provide authorization management
Proposals being accepted through February 9, 2007.
Please address responses to Rob Lanphier at Linden Lab
Choices considered
- Subversion - default choice, and the obvious "safe" choice. Pros: familiar to us, used by a lot of people Cons: very centralized model; need to give people access to facilitate effective collaboration
- Mercurial - bleeding edge choice. Pros: Distributed model makes it easier for anyone to distribute patchsets off of the main codebase without needing a central host. Much easier to maintain a private branch. Cons: more complicated model, less familiar, much newer system
- svk - a decentralized revision control system built on top of svn.
- Externally managed repository, via 3rd party site, such as sourceforge.net, Berlios.de, or similar.
Other systems can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software
See a discussion of this issue in the "Version control repository" discussion on SLDev as well as the talk page for this page