Additionally, if Pieter is going to take over and maintain 3.1, there'll be only one process and one ego left. I don't think there's any reason to keep the repos separated then.
Martin On 11/09/2011 05:56 PM, Mikko Koppanen wrote: > On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Pieter Hintjens<[email protected]> wrote: >> 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? > > Hello, > > my 2cents: > > the single biggest disadvantage from my point of view is related to > the workflow using three separate repositories. If everything was in a > single repository we could finally get rid of manually having to > export/merge diff files between directories. Also, at the moment > people working on all repositories have to go through three different > directories to make sure that git clones are up to date before > starting to work on something. > > Another added benefit of a single repository is being able to follow > progress and commits through different branches with more ease. As far > as I know most of the tools, such as gitk, are also geared towards a > single repository. > > Take a look at for example the following simple commits: > > https://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1/commit/b75c06c34f991d96a3b21d48b74efc029df7c800 > https://github.com/zeromq/libzmq/commit/68ab5f87edd2436757ab92b22238a5a4114d7b0d > > These are both committed with the same commit message but the > contents, hashes etc are totally different in both. There is really > very little visibility over the boundaries of the different > repositories. > _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
