On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 19:02 +0000, Jonathan Lange wrote:
> I personally strongly dislike having projects that aren't linked to
> code (or docs or some sort of shared artifact), and very much like the
> idea of "one codebase corresponds to one project". This is an
> instinctive aesthetic response that I can't back up right now, but am
> happy to hammer it out in the forge of enlightened discourse.
So, if you want codebase;project to be 1:1, I think that is a nice idea
but doesn't work [given LP today].
Violations I see:
- separate projects to partition corporate sponsored branches of mysql
- this is something that mysql *desire*, and is driven by launchpads
behaviour (but exact details I don't know so won't speculate)
- single projects representing a companies 'work' but containing N
code bases. (And we do this internally at Canonical even :)).
I've done the latter myself, and I think the driving factors for it are:
- its really really hard to get good bug reports across many arbitrary
projects
- bug and branch privacy is not polished for the use case of several
different groups working privately on one public upstream
- creating a new project for a temporary internal development effort
on an upstream goes against the grain: when we aren't /forking/,
creating a project-to-be-the-fork feels wrong.
-Rob
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
