Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote: > On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 6:53 PM, Eduardo Lima (Etrunko) <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Our SVN is huge, a real pain to: >>> - checkout (for both newbies and core devs -- those that must >>> checkout everything, so can grep to see what our core changes affect) >>> - understand (for newbies, that also suffer from huge checkout time) >>> >>> The amount of legacy that not even compiles is great. I tried to >>> reduce it a while ago by moving things to BROKEN and OLD. I bet most >>> of stuff in OLD is now broken, and I want to remove those altogether >>> before 1.0 is released. >>> >>> My current plan is to remove: >>> - BROKEN/* >>> - OLD/ all except etk and BINDINGS/python-etk -- no hard feelings >>> if everyone agrees to remove these as well >>> - PROTO/eve (I'll add a proper webkit browser once webkit-efl is >>> released later this month, we broke all the API and eve as is will not >>> even compile) >>> >>> >> I think that removing things is not the correct approach. The thing is >> the whole svn structure is wrong. We should have branches/ tags/ and >> trunk/ for each project, instead of only one of those where every >> library, program or module is dropped. That would help to show the >> clear separation between the projects. >> >> Anyway, I agree that the current repository organization is a big mess >> and something must be done to fix that. Actually many things, and >> please, don't remove things! Instead of getting rid of legacy stuff, >> what about moving OLD/, BROKEN/, PROTO/ and maybe others to the root >> folder, in the same level of trunk/ branches/ and tags/? >> > > What's good in keeping them? SVN's version of Attic? :-) > > Again, I see no other projects keeping attic stuff... see kde3 stuff, > gnome, kernel... once things are gone, they're gone! just svn log will > show they ever existed. > > If you wish we could create a "Dead_Projects" wiki page and list the > revision each directory was removed so one can easily recover it. >
Writing down the revision number by hand is the wrong way to go, simply make a tag, or how it is called in subversion, a copy to a special directory, i.e. BROKEN/. I see the problem that people have to check out the whole trunk including all the "useless" stuff no one is really using. But that's only an issue of the current tree structure. As some one already suggested move it down to e/. If then somebody is going to work on evfs, e_phys or whatever he can simply "svn move e/BROKEN/efvs e/trunk" and has the full history with out fiddling with revision numbers. If not it stays in BROKEN which will nobody hurt because nobody will check it out. And the archaeologists can still browse through it without taking some revision numbers out of a wiki page. Regards Peter ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Planet: dedicated and managed hosting, cloud storage, colocation Stay online with enterprise data centers and the best network in the business Choose flexible plans and management services without long-term contracts Personal 24x7 support from experience hosting pros just a phone call away. http://p.sf.net/sfu/theplanet-com _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
