[csw-maintainers] ITP: opencsw-policy

[Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski]

No dia 1 de Janeiro de 2011 11:10, Peter FELECAN
<pfelecan at opencsw.org> escreveu:
> Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> writes:
>
>> Excerpts from Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski's message of Fri Dec 31 15:44:56 -0500 2010:
>>
>>> Swinging Ockham's razor, I'd think twice before I created any new
>>> source repositories.  I'm already tempted to create new repositories
>>> (for gar, for checkpkg), but I've been curbing these temptations.
>
> Why do you resisted the temptation?

I want to keep things simple.  Our resources are already scattered
across multiple domains and technologies.  I didn't want to add to the
complexity.  Also, creating a new repository requires coordination and
consent of other maintainers, and it was easier to continue using it
as is.

However, I see that there's more and more reason to separate gar (the
framework) from the build files.  I would like to keep the framework
at gar.sf.net and move the build descriptions to opencsw.sf.net.  To
preserve history, we need to contact SF staff and as them to duplicate
the repositories, and then move directories around to achieve the
right layout.

>> Well, I'd like to keep things containerized if possible.  We already
>> have quite the mingling of different things in the primary svn repo
>> (gar, checkpkg, build recipes, sources for a few simple packages,
>> etc).  IMO, each of the above should be a separate repo, but I
>> understand why they're not.
>>
>> The policy documentation will be a large enough entity that it
>> deserves it's own place to live, imo.

I'm inclined to agree, and all other things equal, keeping each
project in a separate repository is better.  If we were to keep the
policy in a separate repository, where would you suggest keeping it?

>>> If we decide that we need a new source repository, it will probably
>>> be git, unless there's a specific reason to use another VCS.  If you
>>> create a new VCS, you need to make sure that it'll be reliable,
>>> access-controlled, backed up and integrated with the rest of our
>>> infrastructure.
>
> I agree that having separate repositories for separate projects is a
> good thing (just look at the size of the actual gar).
>
> However, having many VCS types is a PITA. If we started with subversion
> why change to git? Slowly all this will became a bazaar.

Don't we want to have a different type of VCS?  Subversion is
centralized system, and it seems we want to move towards a distributed
VCS.  We probably won't want to use more than one distributed VCS,
though.

>> We're using sourceforge for svn and relying on their backup.  We could
>> do similar with one of github or gitorious (I use both already for a
>> few things).  Also, with a distributed VCS, each checkout is a
>> backup...although there is potential to lose a few commits if a local
>> copy is lost before sharing the changes.
>
> Is there a reason for which we cannot host our own repositories?
> Especially if we use only one VCS and afferent tools.

We could, but it's a little bit like having own water heating tank in
your apartment (which I do...).  I'd much prefer to have a shared one
that somebody else looks after, it's more economical.  If we used a
distributed VCS, we would be best off using a source code hosting
service such as github or bitbucket.  The only issue is access
control, as each of these services has own user name space, and every
committer has to set up an account separate from our buildfarm
accounts.