A couple more subversion notes

[Kevin Handy]

Ian Lance Taylor wrote:

>Richard Guenther <richard.guenther@gmail.com> writes:
>
>  
>
>>If it is at all possible we should probably try to keep read-only CVS working
>>(and up-to-date) for HEAD and release-branches.  This will allow occasional
>>contributors and technically-less-provided people to continue working in
>>submit-patch mode or in regular testing without raising the barrier for them.
>>
>>I guess it should be possible with some commit-trigger scripts which svn
>>surely has?
>>    
>>
>
>I think that's a good idea.  But I don't think it's fair to expect
>Daniel to write it.  It should be feasible for any sufficiently
>interested person to write a script to dump out a patch from SVN,
>queue up the patches, and apply them to the CVS repository.  In fact
>this doesn't even have to be driven from SVN commit scripts.  It
>obviously doesn't have to be a real-time operation, and could be done
>at any time.  For example a cron job could simply grab a diff of
>everything since the last time it ran and then apply it to the CVS
>repository.  The only even slightly tricky part would be getting the
>cvs add and rm commands right.  We could run that script an hour.
>Anybody who needs more cutting edge sources can switch to SVN.
>  
>
Would it be possible to write a cvs read-only interface to the
svn database? i.e. replace the cvs server with a  svn-cvs emulation
layer.

It would mean that the fake "cvs" server would always be
up-to-date, but you will probably not be able to do everything
a real cvs does. Would this limited cvs access be enough for
most users?