On Monday, December 27, 2010 18:45:57 Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > Yes, this is a disadvantage of git, but we have to cope with that. > > Yes, we have to cope with git disadvantages because it was forced on us > that don't like it by the yous that like it, but i will still complain > when I can since i think that destroying the development model we've used > for ages because the SCM is not up to par with our requirements is > something that seems like a bad idea.
Subversion is not magical. Every disadvantage that's been noted for git is something that is a disadvantage for svn as well. It happens that Subversion quite efficiently handles its operations (otherwise how would our repo with 1.4 million+ separate entire changesets work?) but Git is quite efficient as well. In fact given that we're moving to separate repositories instead of a giant SVN repo, there should be *much* less scaling problems already, so I don't see why an entire module could not easily be supported as a repository. After all, Git works just fine for the entire Linux kernel+drivers. And as you've mentioned, kdepim was converted entirely, with the exception of kdepim/runtime. So in other words let's not claim technical difficulties (and I realize you're not the one claiming this ;) for questions of how to lay out repositories. In my opinion, we should in general prefer to have larger repositories with collections of related apps/libs as we have previously had, for the reason you've mentioned, but also because it makes it much easier to actually get a working desktop. e.g. with the kdesupport split individual components are each going to git.kde.org, so where it used to be easy to get all the "KDE-inspired-but-not- KDE" libraries required from a single source, now it's practically required to look online to see what modules are required in order to make sure they're all built, and we end up with a ginormous dependency tree. This will eventually be worked-around with fancy XML (or something) but the dependency tree will still be just as large. Obviously there's a balance that must be struck, but I think that for the most part the way we've *been* doing it has worked out well and should be the default as we transition to git. Regards, - Michael Pyne
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
