No dia 1 de Janeiro de 2011 11:10, Peter FELECAN <[email protected]> escreveu: > 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?
I want to keep things simple. Our resources are already scattered across multiple domains and technologies. I didn't want to add to the complexity. Also, creating a new repository requires coordination and consent of other maintainers, and it was easier to continue using it as is. However, I see that there's more and more reason to separate gar (the framework) from the build files. I would like to keep the framework at gar.sf.net and move the build descriptions to opencsw.sf.net. To preserve history, we need to contact SF staff and as them to duplicate the repositories, and then move directories around to achieve the right layout. >> 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. I'm inclined to agree, and all other things equal, keeping each project in a separate repository is better. If we were to keep the policy in a separate repository, where would you suggest keeping it? >>> 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. Don't we want to have a different type of VCS? Subversion is centralized system, and it seems we want to move towards a distributed VCS. We probably won't want to use more than one distributed VCS, though. >> 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. We could, but it's a little bit like having own water heating tank in your apartment (which I do...). I'd much prefer to have a shared one that somebody else looks after, it's more economical. If we used a distributed VCS, we would be best off using a source code hosting service such as github or bitbucket. The only issue is access control, as each of these services has own user name space, and every committer has to set up an account separate from our buildfarm accounts. _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
