Hi Joerg, On Thursday 26 April 2007 09:47, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> > What would be an acceptable time for a cwsresync for you? 36 hours > > certainly seems much too high, at least when the resync is to be done > > regularly. But would 1 hour perhaps be acceptable? And if with > > Subversion a resync were possible within 1 hour, would the scenario > > which Bernd described be imaginable for your work? > > well, given that git is able to perform the task in about no time, why > would anything that takes an order of magnitude longer be acceptable? Yes, Thorsten is right. Few minutes is acceptable, an hour is not: we have 1000 patches, let's say one feature consists of 10 patches, it would be 100 branches, making it 100 hours in the worst case. Of course I don't know what would be the average one, but even 10 is too much. Currently the update to new milestone in ooo-build is not limited by tooling at all, it's just the speed I (or whoever does the update) can edit patches... > Besides that, my trouble with that centralized approach are e.g. that > this mandates exactly one policy - for commit rights, licensing, > process, you get the idea. Having a staging tree of DSCM repos allows > for relaxed rules on some of them, while still maintaining our > standards on the 'vanilla' repo. I mean, a dev can simply clone that > repo, and commit right away on his disk, without any administrative > overhead whatsoever. Exactly. And still - up-stream can use these changes after signing the JCA, etc. extremely easily. Regards, Jan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
