Marco Túlio Gontijo e Silva <email@example.com> writes:
> I think a big repo is good for making the same changes in a lot of
> packages. If the packages look the same, or almost the same, most of
> the changes we do to one of the packages will be neeeded to do to the
> another. Then, we would end up with the same packages, with the same
> body and description in a lot of different repos.
If you have a debian/control.in, for example, which is the same for all
Haskell libraries, this could be done in Darcs without needing a single
monolithic repository, simply by pulling patches to debian/control.in
into all the per-package repos. AIUI Mercurial and Git approximate this
as well (transplant, rebase?), but they do so by changing the patches'
identity (i.e. it's hash/checksum)... which makes me worry about the
implications of doing so on a long-term basis.
> It'd be easier to forget a package this way.
- Re: Git?
- From: John Goerzen <firstname.lastname@example.org>