On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:03:38PM -0500, Matthew Summers wrote:
> It is not the size that matters, but the layout of the resulting repo
> or repos. I know the Foundation has discussed having it's own repo.
> There is also the news/gmn/gwn dir and so on.
> How should these resultant repos be structured? Are we in a position
> to retire some of the dirs in gentoo/ ?
If the repository as a whole isn't converted to a single repository, you'll
always have to deal with creating the necessary awareness towards the users
about different locations. But that doesn't mean it'll involve breakage of
Personally, I know the most about the gentoo/xml part of the repository.
Most of the things below that (like gentoo/xml/htdocs, ...) are all quite
much related to each other. A change on an XSL file might be best done
simultaneously with a change on a DTD and various XML files. So my
suggestion would be to at least keep this repository in one "set".
I know there are different privileges assigned below that (translation teams
have different commit rights than documentation editors, who have different
commit rights than website, etc.) and I don't know if git handles this too.
Otoh, for me, I don't mind if the commit rights on gentoo/xml are all put
together. After all, we don't put ACLs on gentoo-x86 either do we?
The other parts, like gentoo/misc (which hasn't seem an update in years),
gentoo/users (which I think can best be migrated to gogo on a per-user
level, and might not even require migration of the history) and gentoo/src
(which I think can be best migrated to gogo as well, but probably involves
history migration too) I know less about.
So, what if we
- focus on gentoo/xml as a migration to git
- contact the folks mentioned in gentoo/users to see if they can request a
git repo on gogo and migrate their content themselves
- contact the projects mentioned in gentoo/src to see if they need to have a
git repo on gogo and if so, if they need to have the commit history
migrated as well
- put gentoo/misc in freeze