www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Santiago Gala <santiago.g...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Best Practices so far?
Date Sun, 04 May 2008 15:25:15 GMT
El dom, 04-05-2008 a las 14:21 +0200, Henning Schmiedehausen escribió:
> On Fri, 2008-05-02 at 20:56 -0700, Paul Querna wrote:
> 
> > > For the record also, I would say that this is so because it is
> > > a) one only repository for every single project
> > 
> > But this is a feature, and allows things like incubator -> TLP 
> > migrations to happen with full history in a few seconds.
> 
> I know infra got some flak back when that decision was made but I'd like
> to state in public that this was one of the best decisions made around
> the CVS->SVN migration. Don't let anyone else say otherwise. Migrating
> to a single repository helped tremendously with the scaling out in our
> projects, helped our biggest PMCs like Jakarta and Incubator and was an
> all around good thing.
> 

This is true at the top level: having ease to moves of code preserving
history is a very nice feature. The implication that this *requires* a
single repository does not follow from there. It follow for subversion,
which can move easily inside a repository but cannot between
repositories.

git, for instance, can import/export/merge graphs from one repository
into another with extreme ease. This, in fact, is a subproduct of the
fact that it is designed to work as a suite of repositories speaking
together, rather than one single repository to be accessed.

In a hypothetical setup using distributed SCM (which I'm not asking for,
before people start to denying what never got asked) this would not be a
feature, but a misfeature.

Regards
Santiago

> 	Best regards
> 		Henning
> 
-- 
Santiago Gala
http://memojo.com/~sgala/blog/


Mime
View raw message