On Monday 27 December 2010 23:48:17 Marcel Wiesweg wrote: > Well, we went for a non-split repo with digikam et al and the answer from > sysadmins was pretty clear (monolithic a no-go).
I'm sorry to intrude in this discussion, but did you get this message from the paper that sysadmins wrote or from other discussions? (private or on the mailinglists...) Because AFAIK the decision was to let every module to decide what's best for them, and I think that, precisely for the reasons that Albert states, you should be encouraged to keep a big repositories with all the application that need/want to be in there. Other repositories are doing that too! And there is always the possibility to split, later, if there are some problems. I just want to make sure there will not be an unfortunate misunderstanding here. :) > I've seen different > opinions on this list, but I can now, technically, only agree with the > split-repo approach: Why should one who wants to code a patch for gwenview > or libksane have to download okular's full history? Remember that git is a > bit different to SVN in that respect. Remember that git is very efficient in handling the history, so this point is not really life changing (or even too much noticeable). Bye, -Riccardo
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
