On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 9:09 PM, Peter Wehrfritz <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Ok, since this seems less harmful for most of you, we could start doing it right now. But I don't have checkout of trunk/.., and I'd really like to avoid having to checkout it just to do these moves... :-P Someone willing to do it? BR, -- Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri http://profusion.mobi embedded systems -------------------------------------- MSN: [email protected] Skype: gsbarbieri Mobile: +55 (19) 9225-2202 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
