On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 05:18:58PM +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote: > Sylvain Beucler escreveu: > >>>It is better if we get a few interested users to use the service, so > >>>as to steer early in the right direction. > >>OK. What would be your proposal? We can move our repo from repo.or.cz > >>to savannah, and leave the CVS import cron running on lilypond.org. Do > >>you want to do it now, or do you need some time? > >> > >>One thing that I wanted to remark: I think it's best to have not one > >>repo per project, but rather, one repository per module. We have a bunch > >>of modules that are related to LilyPond, but are on different release > >>schedules. > > > >We can create the repository now. > > Ok, I will discuss with Jan whether the current repo is good enough for > official installation. > > >I see that at repo.or.cz this means 'fork' rather than > >'subproject'. Maybe that'll become something like: > >/srv/git/project.git > >/srv/git/project/s/subproject.git > >/srv/git/project/f/subproject.git > >if this is needed. > > > >What would you need? > > we will probably need (in the long run): the following subprojects: > > - lilypond > - newweb > - workbook > - ikebana > - mac-installer > - gub > > currently, we also have a module mftrace, but I think it would be better > to have that as a separate project.
Ok, current I created http://git.sv.gnu.org/r/lilypond.git/ . It will start appearing at http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/ when non-empty. > >Also, is there a difficulty in using several heads instead of several > >repositories? That is, why not "one head per module" instead of "one > >repository per module"? > > GIT repositories can contain multiple branches, and GIT encourages to > use them, although some people seem to find it confusing (when compared > to other systems) Ok. What I wonder is why you'd rather have separate sub-repositories then :) -- Sylvain
