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

[Thomas Zander]

On Wednesday 8. September 2010 21.45.23 Chani wrote:
> > We gave an advise, and I personally hope we can all stop attacking the
> > messengers and the timing and look at the document and discuss the
> > problems it addresses.
> 
> I believe I made it clear that advice was only welcome in the form of a
> well- researched proposal...   oh, looking back, it seems I only said
> "proper proposal" and didn't clarify what that meant. *sigh* although I
> did ask for it to consider release and packaging, which it didn't...
> 
> still, the pdf had some good points about the sysadmin side of repo
> organization.
> 
> can you and tz quit antagonizing each other and pull a clear list of pros
> and cons out of this thread? or is it too late?

Yes, I was reading through the proposal a couple of times and finding out what 
the reasons are for sysadmin to suggest this approach. This is what I found;

* reviewboard issues.  This is not an issue at all because sysadmin 
misunderstood the proposal of kdereview/extragear separation.  With the 
separation in place there already and no apps moving in and out of modules all 
the time this point is a non-issue.

* Redmine.  This one is really confusing to me;  it mixes up assumptions and 
outcome.
In effect there is no issue; if we have one repo for things like kdepim or koffice 
we have code browsing attached to that. As expected.
The only issue brought up is that it takes 2 clicks instead of one to start 
browsing the code repo of, for example, kmail.

* Gitolite;
the logic to split repos really only are targetted at kdereview and extragear. 
Which already were going to be split.  There are no points in the document that 
seem to be problems for us to look at based on our already existing approuch.


As far as I can see the document doesn't give us any critical or even not very 
critical concerns for our current approach.

-- 
Thomas Zander