[Kde-scm-interest] Sysadmin advice regarding Monolithic vs Split repositories.

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Tuesday 07 September 2010, Tom Albers wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:03:28 -0700, Chani <chanika at gmail.com> wrote:
> > -I don't understand the fuss over reviewboard. currently, reviews
> > are sent to groups, independent of where the code is located: for
> > example, a plasma review request could be for code in kdelibs,
> > workspace/plasma, kdeplasmaaddons, playground, or elsewhere. Are you
> > suggesting automating (and therefore changing) these reviewer
> > groups, or just the underlying modules? (I would assume the latter,
> > but want to be clear here :)
> > Also, 90% of the reviews are old cruft that someone forgot to
> > close, so imho you'd have no problem just discarding them when a
> > move happens. :)
> > anything that's not abandoned could be resubmitted.
> 
> Ok, some clarification: currently we have reviewboard projects for
> everyone who requested one. One for marble, kmail, plasma, etc. In
> the new setup we want to centralize the management of the systems.
> That means there is a 1-to-1 mapping between gitolite repositories,
> redmine projects and reviewboard projects. That means in the
> monolithic approach we would not have a 'kmail' project anymore in
> reviewboard, but only the general 'kdepim' project. Kmail review
> requests should be submitted to the 'kdepim' project on rb. That
> means that there can only be 1 recipient.

Actually, there is no kmail group in Review Board. There is a kdepim 
group. So the kmail/kdepim example doesn't really work if you want to 
argue for split repositories. :-)


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20100908/fec7638f/attachment.sig