On Sunday 10 April 2005 8:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a > | single repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is > | about to convert everything into a single svn repos as well (for > | other reasons). For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense > | (administrative) to keep everything into a single repository as well. > | However, providing each sub project with its own repository will work > | around the single-point-of-failure effect (in worst case) so it's > | likely to happen this way. > > Nothing to do with single points of failure.
maybe wrong said. I mean, when you break the repos, you break everything and the whole development process halts. when you break a little repos if a single dev group, you break just this one (to be fixed though) and the others will continue w/o any problems. > SVN uses transactions and > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on a > per project basis. reason? > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN > revision IDs are actually meaningful, SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a given time, nothing more or less. > and you don't want to lock every > single Gentoo project whilst one person on a slow dialup connection does > a single transaction to a single project. as confirmed by svn devs and others, the transaction data is first uploaded to the server (with whatever speed the client has) and then performed server-side. Though, the time of locking the database depends on the CPU load, and not the client's [dialup] speed. Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all their public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any problems. Regards, Christian Parpart. -- Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 23:44:22 up 18 days, 12:50, 2 users, load average: 0.51, 0.64, 0.72
pgpkvaHCyl0SG.pgp
Description: PGP signature