Hello! On Sun, Aug 09, 2009 at 06:20:41PM +0200, olafbuddenha...@gmx.net wrote: > On Sun, Aug 02, 2009 at 02:05:30PM +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > Now, for publishing last years' GSoC projects etc., we'd need another > > bunch of 'em: for the projects that create new ``modules'' (procfs, > > LISP stuff, libchannel, eth-filter, eth-multiplexer, proc_proxy, > > nsmux, ...) -- I'd like to have theses in separate repositories > > instead of muddling all of them into the Hurd proper repository. > > Why? Who exactly would would benefit from that?
We can't keep the whole world in one repository. (Actually, we could, but we don't want to.) > > But instead of creating a full-fledged (separate) Git repository for > > each of the projects, I propose to have a ``dump'' repository in which > > there are several independent branches (`lisp', `channel', `eth-*', > > ...) containing the respective files. > > Sounds like a mess. What is the advantage over branches in the main > repository? Somewhere the line has to be drawn between what is considered part of the official Hurd distribution, and stuff that is currently in the incubator. In my book, the collect-'em-all hurd/hurd.git repository is not the way to go for the future -- that's why I don't intend to add new modules to it, but instead use separate repositories per module. (We discussed this already.) Branches for working on existing modules are another issue: these are fine to live in hurd/hurd.git. > Ideally, users should be able to create their own repositories, like on > freedesktop.org. I don't think Savannah supports that though?... :-( Correct, Savannah doesn't support that -- and note that this is exactly what I meant the hurd/dump.git repository to be used for. Of course, if this scheme turns out to be unwieldy, we can simply throw it away again -- thanks to the Git design no information will be lost. Regards, Thomas
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
