[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: procfs, separate repo?

From: Ivan Shmakov
Subject: Re: procfs, separate repo?
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:18:04 +0700
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)

>>>>> Richard Braun <rbraun@sceen.net> writes:
>>>>> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:59:47PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:


 >> Given that Git has support submodules, but not (AIUI) for repository
 >> merging and splitting, my opinion would be to keep all but the bare
 >> minimum off the main Hurd repository.

 >> There could be a kind of hurd-full.git repository, which has all the
 >> relevant submodules' configuration to tie all the Hurd repositories
 >> together, though.

 > Unless it's very easy to use submodules, we should use one
 > repository.

        Virtually the only issue with multiple repositories is that a
        single commit cannot span across more than one of them.

 > Other projects with much more content and history have showed it's
 > perfectly sane to keep that much in one place, and it simplifies
 > keeping the tightly coupled modules of the Hurd in sync.

        As it was already pointed out, Hurd modules /shouldn't/ be
        coupled that tightly.

FSF associate member #7257      http://sf-day.org/

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]