Ben Walton <[email protected]> writes: > Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski's message of Fri Dec 31 15:44:56 > -0500 2010: > >> Swinging Ockham's razor, I'd think twice before I created any new >> source repositories. I'm already tempted to create new repositories >> (for gar, for checkpkg), but I've been curbing these temptations.
Why do you resisted the temptation? > Well, I'd like to keep things containerized if possible. We already > have quite the mingling of different things in the primary svn repo > (gar, checkpkg, build recipes, sources for a few simple packages, > etc). IMO, each of the above should be a separate repo, but I > understand why they're not. > > The policy documentation will be a large enough entity that it > deserves it's own place to live, imo. > >> If we decide that we need a new source repository, it will probably >> be git, unless there's a specific reason to use another VCS. If you >> create a new VCS, you need to make sure that it'll be reliable, >> access-controlled, backed up and integrated with the rest of our >> infrastructure. I agree that having separate repositories for separate projects is a good thing (just look at the size of the actual gar). However, having many VCS types is a PITA. If we started with subversion why change to git? Slowly all this will became a bazaar. > We're using sourceforge for svn and relying on their backup. We could > do similar with one of github or gitorious (I use both already for a > few things). Also, with a distributed VCS, each checkout is a > backup...although there is potential to lose a few commits if a local > copy is lost before sharing the changes. Is there a reason for which we cannot host our own repositories? Especially if we use only one VCS and afferent tools. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
