Hello devs, I resurrect this thread, as I would like to check in a first version of workspaces in the coming days.
I want to support Vincent's point on external tools. If we go for separate SVNs, we should be able to have easily access to the same set of tools we have on the main one now; and, ideally those tools should be centralized (for example for fisheye it would mean still being able to see a changelog cross products). Although, wouldn't it be more painful to update dependencies for all products after a release if we have to commit in different repos ? WDYT ? Regards, Jerome. > > On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Raffaello Pelagalli wrote: > >> Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or >>> several. Right now we have 4: >>> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki >>> - chronopolys >>> - xwiki workspaces >>> - sandbox >>> >>> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons: >>> >>> 1) Simpler Admin >>> 2) Consolidate history >>> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example >>> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's >>> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we >>> move things around >>> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to >>> point >>> to several repos (IDE, etc) >>> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search, >>> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer >>> >>> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not >>> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done >>> before. >>> >>> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos. >>> >>> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit >>> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication >>> based >>> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a >>> problem. >>> >>> WDYT? >>> >>> Thanks >>> -Vincent >> >> Hi, >> >> I think that it's normal to have separate repositories, at it is >> separate projects. >> >> Technicaly there is no problem if you want that xwiki committers can >> commit on >> all the projects (chrono, curriki, workspaces, sandbox, core, >> etc ...). >> >> The problem is : if you give some rights to someone for committing >> on sandbox >> he will be able to commit on the core if he wants ... > > I've explained how to do it. Also this is working very fine in > Apache land so I really don't see this as a problem. > >> Also, there is not only xwiki opensource repositories on this >> server, so we >> will not change the authentication mechanism, at least not in very >> near futur. > > I don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain more? > >> So here is my -1 for the technical part and another -1 for because I >> really >> think that different projects need to have different repositories :) >> >> And finally here is my +1 to move Curriki, Watch, XE and XEM on >> there own >> repositories, which will be more consistent regarding the way we >> manage >> the different products on xwiki.org. > > Right now the main argument you give is "it's normal to have separate > repositories". This sounds like a low argument compared to the ones > I've given :) > > Could you please list specific advantages? > > Thanks > -Vincent > > _______________________________________________ > devs mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs > _______________________________________________ devs mailing list [email protected] http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
