On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 1:42 AM, gonzalo diethelm <[email protected]> wrote:
> In fact, I would also like to voice my opinion on something that is related > to this: moving to a single git repo. I am convinced it should be possible to > have a single repo with the following branches: Could you explain what the essential disadvantage of having multiple repos, each working with their own master branch and supporting branches as required, and a single repo with multiple organized branches? I'm not against a single git as such, just that in practice it demands much more upfront agreement, and is essentially more centralized with the disadvantages that brings. Git makes it cheap to create and manage multiple gits (and in practice we've shown this to be cheap and accurate). So I'd like to know what exactly keeps people asking for a single repository. (Multiple branches are IMO more work, not less work, to understand than one git per minor version). (And I've not seen a single real use case for "unified history"). -Pieter _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
