[csw-maintainers] ITP: opencsw-policy

[Peter FELECAN]

"Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski" <maciej at opencsw.org> writes:

> 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?

> 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.

This is why I think that we should host our VCS: independence.

>>> 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?

On a serve in the opencsw.or domain.

>>>> 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.

Even though I think that subversion is a leveling choice, I don't oppose
to move to a distributed VCS as long as we don't change as a new fad
emerge...

>>> 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.

Personally I don't like this kind of reasoning as it reduces our
capacity of intervention and independence.
-- 
Peter