Re: Further Git repositories?

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hello!

On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 06:20:41PM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:05:30PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > Now, for publishing last years' GSoC projects etc., we'd need another
> > bunch of 'em: for the projects that create new ``modules'' (procfs,
> > LISP stuff, libchannel, eth-filter, eth-multiplexer, proc_proxy,
> > nsmux, ...) -- I'd like to have theses in separate repositories
> > instead of muddling all of them into the Hurd proper repository.
> 
> Why? Who exactly would would benefit from that?

We can't keep the whole world in one repository.  (Actually, we could,
but we don't want to.)

> > But instead of creating a full-fledged (separate) Git repository for
> > each of the projects, I propose to have a ``dump'' repository in which
> > there are several independent branches (`lisp', `channel', `eth-*',
> > ...) containing the respective files.
> 
> Sounds like a mess. What is the advantage over branches in the main
> repository?

Somewhere the line has to be drawn between what is considered part of the
official Hurd distribution, and stuff that is currently in the incubator.
In my book, the collect-'em-all hurd/hurd.git repository is not the way
to go for the future -- that's why I don't intend to add new modules to
it, but instead use separate repositories per module.  (We discussed this
already.)  Branches for working on existing modules are another issue:
these are fine to live in hurd/hurd.git.

> Ideally, users should be able to create their own repositories, like on
> freedesktop.org. I don't think Savannah supports that though?... :-(

Correct, Savannah doesn't support that -- and note that this is exactly
what I meant the hurd/dump.git repository to be used for.

Of course, if this scheme turns out to be unwieldy, we can simply throw
it away again -- thanks to the Git design no information will be lost.


Regards,
 Thomas

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature