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

Re: The annual git/svn discussion (was: Re: Minutes of the pkg-perl BoF at DebConf 10)

On 23:35 Sat 07 Aug     , Tim Retout wrote:
> > Tim says he has given up on trying to get git to work. Not saying it
> > is impossible, just saying someone has to care about it.
> I should add more detail of what I found last year, most of which I've
> already communicated to Jonas:
> 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.

In a more or less near future we will probably have all packages under git but
we should let the team members choose to use git or svn.

What could be nice would be to have some scripts helping to migrate a single
package from svn to git and have the PET tracking git and svn (and take care of
not having a package both in git and svn). And we need thus to update the
documentation with git too since we are only speaking of svn right now.

We will not have the problem you raised by cloning every perl module git
repository since we are working only in one small repository. Having all git
repositories is not useful I think. Another nice thing would be to create a
script where you tell the module you want to work on and then it will git clone
the correct repo, maybe do the uuscan stuff, checkout the correct branch and you
are ready to work.

Well, this are some suggestions, feel free to comment or destroy them ;) Im not
familiar enough with git right now and Im wondering what you think...

Xavier Oswald <xoswald@debian.org>
GNU/Linux Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org/
GPG key IDs: 0x88BBB51E, 0x464B8DE3

Reply to: