| 1 |
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@g.o> |
| 2 |
wrote: |
| 3 |
| Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a |
| 4 |
| single repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is |
| 5 |
| about to convert everything into a single svn repos as well (for |
| 6 |
| other reasons). For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense |
| 7 |
| (administrative) to keep everything into a single repository as well. |
| 8 |
| However, providing each sub project with its own repository will work |
| 9 |
| around the single-point-of-failure effect (in worst case) so it's |
| 10 |
| likely to happen this way. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Nothing to do with single points of failure. SVN uses transactions and |
| 13 |
changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on a |
| 14 |
per project basis. Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN |
| 15 |
revision IDs are actually meaningful, and you don't want to lock every |
| 16 |
single Gentoo project whilst one person on a slow dialup connection does |
| 17 |
a single transaction to a single project. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools) |
| 21 |
Mail : ciaranm at gentoo.org |
| 22 |
Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm |
Archives