[Kde-scm-interest] Re: kdegraphics libs migration

[Riccardo Iaconelli]

On Monday 27 December 2010 23:48:17 Marcel Wiesweg wrote:
> Well, we went for a non-split repo with digikam et al and the answer from 
> sysadmins was pretty clear (monolithic a no-go).

I'm sorry to intrude in this discussion, but did you get this message from the 
paper that sysadmins wrote or from other discussions? (private or on the 
mailinglists...)

Because AFAIK the decision was to let every module to decide what's best for 
them, and I think that, precisely for the reasons that Albert states, you 
should be encouraged to keep a big repositories with all the application that 
need/want to be in there. Other repositories are doing that too! And there is 
always the possibility to split, later, if there are some problems.

I just want to make sure there will not be an unfortunate misunderstanding 
here. :)

> I've seen different
> opinions  on this list, but I can now, technically, only agree with the
> split-repo approach: Why should one who wants to code a patch for gwenview
> or libksane have to download okular's full history? Remember that git is a
> bit different to SVN in that respect.

Remember that git is very efficient in handling the history, so this point is 
not really life changing (or even too much noticeable).

Bye,
-Riccardo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20101229/d98849b4/attachment.sig