On Mon, Aug 09, 2010 at 07:06:05PM +0200, Xavier Oswald wrote:
On 08:02 Mon 09 Aug , Tim Retout wrote:On 8 August 2010 07:27, Xavier Oswald <xoswald@debian.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.Ok too.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 migration easily.
+1 - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature