I think the underlying problem is how to streamline the experience for us and users. I have no experience with submodules or subtrees, so thanks for the info on that. If combining *some* of the repositories is enough for delivering a better experience, let's go with that.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 7:28 AM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > I know this is meant to be a vote only thread, but before I cast a binding > vote (which will change things from being tied 3-3), I need a bit more > information. > > I read the Pro Git page on subtrees but still find it confusing how pushing > upstream will work for a subtree. We also have the scenario where a > non-committer wants to provide a patch back to us so they will still need to > fork one or more of the base repositories, which will mean the subtree based > repo will not work unless they also make changes in that cloned repo to > point to their forked repo. If we promote users to clone the super-repo > rather than the individual ones, then we'll be requiring users to deal with > more complexity of this type of git set up. > > Is there much need to maintain a super-repo of the official masters in > github, when we could just provide a script to clone/pull all the existing > repos into the current directory. TeamCity can also easily be set up to pull > from multiple git repositories to perform an build across all projects. I do > understand we'll need a script to run the build scripts of each tree and > copy the dependencies over to the next tree before running the build script. > > Because users still need to fork each repository they want to commit to, I > think it would make sense to combine some of the repos as Krzysztof > suggested. > > As mentioned by several people I don't think this is one or the other vote. > I see no problem someone setting up a subtree based repo if that helps, but > I am also pro combining some of the repositories. Looking back now we can > definitely say that we did split the repos apart a little too much. > > On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:17 AM, hammett <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Vote results >> >> binding >> Option [1] 3 votes >> Option [2] 3 votes >> >> nonbinding >> Option [1] 2 votes >> Option [2] 1 vote >> >> We will need to either wait for an untie vote or go back and re-think >> the options. >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> hammett >> http://hammett.castleproject.org/ >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Castle Project Development List" group. >> To post to this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected]. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > Jono > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Castle Project Development List" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en. > -- Cheers, hammett http://hammett.castleproject.org/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en.
