"Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <[email protected]> writes: > 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?
> 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. This is why I think that we should host our VCS: independence. >>> 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? On a serve in the opencsw.or domain. >>>> 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. Even though I think that subversion is a leveling choice, I don't oppose to move to a distributed VCS as long as we don't change as a new fad emerge... >>> 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. Personally I don't like this kind of reasoning as it reduces our capacity of intervention and independence. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
