Re: The annual git/svn discussion (was: Re: Minutes of the pkg-perl BoF at DebConf 10)
On 8 August 2010 07:27, Xavier Oswald <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 23:35 Sat 07 Aug , Tim Retout wrote:
>> I assumed we would want one git repository per package. Now, 1700 git
>> repositories turns out to be quite difficult to make perform as
>> quickly as a single svn trunk checkout.
> Im not sure if this is what we want.. One git per package seems fair but Im
> wondering if we really want to move all the 1700 packages we have. Some people
> will still want to work with svn and for people who are working on a package
> they can choose to create a git repo and move the work under git.
Okay, I wasn't intending to imply this (and I was actually testing on
a pilot set of about 200 packages). My point was that we want one git
repository per source package, and not one git repository for all
I think the consensus at the meeting was that we need PET 2 in place
(with support for both svn and git repositories), so that we can
consider an incremental migration.
Tim Retout <firstname.lastname@example.org>