On 27/10/15 13:45, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
Looking at this thread, there seems to be no one really against moving
to git.
When it comes to moving, we have three options:
a) create a single git repo
I'd start here.
It's the simplest and lowest risk thing to do, doesn't break your
parent-pom hierarchy, etc.
It merely switches the VCS.
And then work from there, try out different solutions for your
parent-pom hierarchy, releasing, etc
You can always split out parts of the tree later while preserving
history. Git doesn't mind and has great tooling to do that.
b) create git repos by functional modules
c) create a git repo for every artifact
Depending on which variant we pick, the more work it is to get
everything moved. Therefore apart from deciding for the option it
depends on a volunteer to drive this thing.
I'm unsure on how we come to a decision on the option. I think all
arguments are on the plate and there is little use in reiterating these
in slightly different fashions.
The thing I don't know is, how much effort it requires to
request/create/setup another git repo, e.g. if we start with a) and
there is a desire to create a separate repo for something. (I know the
git commands to move a subtree to a different repo, therefore I'm just
asking about the effort on the infra side)
Regards
Carsten
--
Ferry Huberts
