| 1 |
On 8/8/11 7:42 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote: |
| 2 |
> Am Samstag 06 August 2011, 23:57:13 schrieb Fabio Erculiani: |
| 3 |
>> I really love the idea of being able to atomically push updates |
| 4 |
>> across multiple CPVs. This is also what KDE, GNOME, and many other |
| 5 |
>> teams are waiting for. Having multiple repos means no atomicity and |
| 6 |
>> at this point, I would rather prefer CVS (omg!). |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Exactly. This is why I would also vote for a single tree and single |
| 9 |
> modern vcs. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
+1 here. I'm curious what problems multiple repos would be solving, or |
| 12 |
is it just "it's cool and Fedora/other distros does it" ? |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> In addition, I would like to propose that we keep the number of |
| 15 |
> required "home-made addons and scripts" to a minimum. As long as we |
| 16 |
> have straight cvs or straight git, every tool developed for these |
| 17 |
> systems just works. As soon as we start assembling our tree with a |
| 18 |
> huge self-made infrastructure, we're all confined to our own tools |
| 19 |
> for every operation that steps over the newly created repository |
| 20 |
> limits. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
+1 here too. Vanilla git + repoman is cool. If we have a wrapper on top |
| 23 |
of that that assembles the rsync tree it starts to be much more complex, |
| 24 |
even more than our current CVS it seems. |
Archives