[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-scm-interest
Subject:    [Kde-scm-interest] Layout of Git repositories for KDE
From:       j.sixt () viscovery ! net (Johannes Sixt)
Date:       2007-11-05 14:04:01
Message-ID: 472F22D1.1020501 () viscovery ! net
[Download RAW message or body]

Thiago Macieira schrieb:
> Em Monday 05 November 2007 13:49:01 Johannes Sixt escreveu:
>> Thiago Macieira schrieb:
>>> My concern, however, is for modules in playground when evolving. If we
>>> actually *move* the repository, the URL changes and everyone's remotes
>>> will have to be changed, as well as alternates set up locally and
>>> submodules.
>> But only people who actually had the module checked out are affected. Only
>> after the module went into /stable many more people would be affected. This
>> means that there better be good plans where to put the module before it
>> goes to /stable.
> 
> Playground was part of /stable in my proposal.
> 
> I guess we could merge playground with projects. New applications being 
> created are a "project" and they get moved directly into stable/kdereview 
> when they are considered stable. Thus we merge also the concepts of stable 
> and release-worthy.

I understand; in particular, playground == projects makes sense. But I 
assume that stable/kdereview is meant as a placeholder for reasonably mature 
projects, not necessarily submodules of the KDE supermodule (or any other 
supermodule). It's a place to make the projects more visible and to point 
out the stable nature.

(If projects in stable/kdereview were submodules of something, then moving 
them from kdereview to the final place inside stable/ would mean another 
awkward module move.)

> I guess we can simply extend the concept to the new discontinued/ tree: we 
> have a copy of any module there, with branches pointing to discontinued 
> branches.

YES!

>> The better option is to move the history to a branch (possibly read-only)
>> in the /stable hierarchy.
> 
> I'd rather not clutter /stable with unnecessary branches or repositories.
> I think organisation has to be thought of very early in the process to avoid 
> this:
> http://git.kernel.org/

You name it! ;)

-- Hannes

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]