Re: The annual git/svn discussion (was: Re: Minutes of the pkg-perl BoF at DebConf 10)
On 08:02 Mon 09 Aug , Tim Retout wrote:
> On 8 August 2010 07:27, Xavier Oswald <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> source packages.
This is right.
> 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.
What I was saying is that we maybe don't need to migrate all packages under git
and let people when they are working on a target package to let the choice of
migrating to git or keeping in svn.
And another point is that some packages, I don't know how many; will not be
updated with a new upstream version that soon or even will never be updated
upstream. Moving them to git is useless right now...
My point was that we should provide scripts/tools for people who want do a git
Xavier Oswald <email@example.com>
GNU/Linux Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org/
GPG key IDs: 0x88BBB51E, 0x464B8DE3