From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from iai.speak-friend.de (iai.speak-friend.de [62.75.222.128]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j3BLWaXm024835 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 21:32:36 GMT Received: from battousai.surakware.net (p3E9E0D11.dip.t-dialin.net [62.158.13.17]) by iai.speak-friend.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0EFC238001 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:32:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Parpart Organization: Gentoo Linux Foundation To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion? Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 23:32:21 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8 References: <425956D1.5040006@gentoo.org> <200504112223.32908.trapni@gentoo.org> <20050411214252.3dca4edc@snowdrop> In-Reply-To: <20050411214252.3dca4edc@snowdrop> X-Face: $-3HTEy*5}2A{'R'VPim$,8KKX$l|:P^RhP{;yQ)g;]4isyohrOfk\)=?utf-8?q?Q=2Ep=23F3RWB=7D!m=24zn=0A=097=5CPUKBYRKDFUU=3A=5CZ+U=5Fa-/=5BhI?= =?utf-8?q?8DJZ?="WPC2j~}(N."(JB&VNb}kU&`> =?utf-8?q?9=3B=5FN=3BfnM=7BD=7B8=2EI+5=0A=09dg=60p=5EQ?=(:yE{eVgArPf190vEkbGis0vx];" =?utf-8?q?1O!L=7ByKN4J=5B4=27=7E=7Eh+o+=7D=2EgzkmqNs=60=7D=7C0uq8a=0A=09?= =?utf-8?q?=25WQg=3F=3D=25y7X74tMWEkL=5DQQ?=(_Yc"m*aC+HD%!,6/k>L7S%'<}_B2&cI}/W(p+;rJ%2`0A<) =?utf-8?q?F=0A=09P7P=2E=60=3Dy=7C=7DU=7E=3F!?= List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart1924703.c5JW1r67WD"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200504112332.23706.trapni@gentoo.org> X-Archives-Salt: bc0b242d-9a0b-4ddd-9ded-e436f11b96df X-Archives-Hash: 0006a4eedbe71a41d13f91c403265b5c --nextPart1924703.c5JW1r67WD Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-6" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 11 April 2005 10:42 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:23:29 +0200 Christian Parpart > > wrote: > | On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > | > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart > | > > | > > | > wrote: > | > | > SVN uses transactions and > | > | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're > | > | > done on a per project basis. > | > | > | > | reason? > | > > | > Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without > | > having to arse around with path prefixes. > | > | Do you have to? If so, why? > > Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these version > control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a hell of a > lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me everything that > changed in the foo project between three days ago and today" rather than > having to worry about adding in extra selections to pick a project path. yeah ;) > | > | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN > | > | > revision IDs are actually meaningful, > | > | > | > | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at > | > | a given time, nothing more or less. > | > > | > Not repo IDs. Revision IDs. > | > | That's the one I meant. yeah. > > And, said revision IDs are useful for keeping track of what's changed. > Or, at least, they are if you know that an update of 3 in the revision > number is equivalent to three changesets, which you don't if you use > multiple projects per repo. This eases the understanding of course. However, sometimes moving file X fr= om=20 project foo to bar makes sense. I do not say that *you* will be in such=20 situation, but I know I already went in. And besides, I'm (not related to=20 gentoo) keeping multiple repositories for different projects and (where it= =20 makes sense) project categories. > | > | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all > | > | their public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any > | > | problems. > | > > | > So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo > | > would be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better. > | > | Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent > | argument on why the ASF made a mistake here. > > One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple. Might be personal taste, I can't feel here with you, but this is *all* not= =20 part of GLEP36. So, let's break here the loop ;) Regards, Christian Parpart. =2D-=20 Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 23:25:53 up 19 days, 12:32, 4 users, load average: 0.94, 0.71, 0.65 --nextPart1924703.c5JW1r67WD Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCWuznPpa2GmDVhK0RAj8YAJ0b9cYqOLQCCufxQDX5E1EAKpWm6ACfU50N N79Srt+fj95CMKDGntF8S8Y= =bghc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1924703.c5JW1r67WD-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list