On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 6:56 PM, Mikko Koppanen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It may be harder to follow work on github, but not on local copy. just do git remote add zeromq2-1 git://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-1 git remote add zeromq2-2 git://github.com/zeromq/zeromq2-2 git remote add libzmq git://github.com/zeromq/libzmq (exact urls are untested) And you can do all of the following: # show combined log of all projects git log --all # update data from all repositories git fetch --all # work on any version's master branch git checkout -b master zeromq2-1/master # merge changes from all the master branches into current branch git merge zeromq2-1/master zeromq2-2/master libzmq/master # pull also works git pull zeromq2-1 master; git pull zeromq2-2 master Sure, you can cherry-pick from any branch, and gitk will also show all of them. What else do you want? On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 10:23 PM, Pieter Hintjens <[email protected]> wrote: > There is no "latest production master" of 0MQ, and trying to present > this almost throttled our release cycle, last year. As we've seen, the > freedom to maintain multiple conflicting "realities" (2.1 vs. 3.0 vs. > 4.0) is essential. The alternative would by now have been a choice > between forced upgrade, or no experimentation. > Sure. You can change default branch for git repository. Just delete "master" branch. Do 2.1.x, 2.2.x, 3.0.x and 3.1.x branches. Set default either "3.1.x" branch or one named "unstable", so that it's clear that it's just for experimentation. git flow itself makes "develop" branch default, not master. You can also add "stable" branch which is synchronized with "3.1.x" or whatever latest stable is, so new projects can just grab it and work, instead of examining what the best release is. If you do not like "3.1.x" notation you can use "libzmq3-1-current" or "v3.1-master" notation or whatever you like. Also you can use folders for feature branches. Usually they may be called "feature/yyy" but if you want feature for some version you can adopt "for-3.1.x/yyy" naming scheme. The only problem with several repositories is github forks. People will be forced to have several forks and even may be to sync all their zmq forks, for example to propose pull request for several versions. Just my 2 cents. Not to force either way. Just to educate people that neither way is really a problem for git. -- Paul -- Paul _______________________________________________ zeromq-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zeromq.org/mailman/listinfo/zeromq-dev
