On 2016-10-12 15:30 (+0300), Emilian Bold <[email protected]> wrote: > As I mentioned before I don't see this an improvement of the status-quo, > technically. I would agree with Emilian, that the current structure proved to work and it works reliable. If the main advantage of split is "size", then we need to see new numbers when history is moved as well.
Btw, sometimes Java introduces the new feature, then C++ introduces the same functionality, so we agree to make refactorings by generalizing common parts and moving them into platform/nb layer, while keeping Java-specific/C++-specific code in corresponding places. History is easier manageable when it happens in one repo. As another example: we implemented Terminal in C++, then 'contributed' into Full IDE by simple re-regestring module in nbbuild/cluster.properties. One repo fits better, than moving modules between different ones Thanks, Vladimir.
