Mailing-List: contact infrastructure-dev-help@apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of santiago.gala@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.169 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=iIHtNrOQruw6Ade+biZ3CMurBpm+ff9nhTjN8Ch+kSeEwrKpEKprms1S26jzRa5QM6f/M2b2ldF2qVnNdrxmE371WFZVYIJ5VyzI06XxWxHOHLmiupXM5XLLl2Q7bQjEybENMNZOTcMZq4jCCSnbmlE+WcF0vcLNlsBAeP7QG9g=
Subject: Re: Best Practices so far?
From: Santiago Gala <santiago.gala@gmail.com>
To: hps@intermeta.de
Cc: infrastructure-dev@apache.org
In-Reply-To: <1209903699.9882.85.camel@forge.intermeta.de>
References: <481ACF4C.9040509@gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0805020143y47fb22f9m6da17a123be7e130@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0805020507m302bcbfcje3d77bf9e6437722@mail.gmail.com>
	 <510143ac0805020739s1f0bc6e4t1fd45e3f563c633@mail.gmail.com>
	 <481B3378.30709@apache.org>
	 <fbdc6a970805020849p523b895dh7dec36211e6d5349@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c902b9e0805020930l1bace3b3vbe2eaaa55ee4a08e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209750754.5614.538.camel@marlow>
	 <5c902b9e0805021143x7c3083cg3be197453b9c994d@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209754696.5614.556.camel@marlow>
	 <5c902b9e0805021204l100c8038n6728cd4dc5d1dfbd@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1209757889.5614.584.camel@marlow>  <481B7290.7000609@apache.org>
	 <1209768076.5655.2.camel@marlow>  <481BE267.5020902@apache.org>
	 <1209903699.9882.85.camel@forge.intermeta.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Date: Sun, 04 May 2008 17:25:15 +0200
Message-Id: <1209914715.10595.20.camel@marlow>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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/