El mar, 19-02-2008 a las 23:06 -0500, Noel J. Bergman escribió: > Endre Stølsvik wrote: > > > I find the decision to use one single SVN repo for the entire > > organization's source pretty strange. I'd believe that one repo > > for every TLP > > Been there, done that, have the scars. >
Possibly using several *centralized* repositories that can't merge. May we know more? If not, I call FUD ask the jury to ignore the statement. :) > > The only downside I see is a slight bit more configuration management > > Don't be so blithe about that. > I actually think management would be way smaller. And, what is more important, distributable per repository. > > and that copying/moving a file from one repo to another would not keep > > history > > Unacceptable to lose it, IMO. > Can be done without losing history. See separate email. And I have done the same test with hg (basically the same) and bazaar (which required some command line tweaking, but doable). > And you'd be surprised how often things move around. > If you take a look into the basic development model in the linux kernel, it means moving history between repositories continuously (say from am to net to linus,...) Every line of code is tracked while it moves, in fact when Linus merges from, say, the acpi tree, the commits remain identical. Regards Santiago (I add cc: and reply-to: community) > --- Noel > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
