Single SVN repository vs several

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Single SVN repository vs several

vmassol
Administrator
Hi,

We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or  
several. Right now we have 4:
- main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
- chronopolys
- xwiki workspaces
- sandbox

I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:

1) Simpler Admin
2) Consolidate history
3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example  
the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's  
not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we  
move things around
4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to point  
to several repos (IDE, etc)
5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,  
stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer

Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not  
like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done before.

To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.

However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit  
emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication based  
on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a problem.

WDYT?

Thanks
-Vincent



_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Single SVN repository vs several

Thomas Mortagne
Administrator
+1 for me especially for xwiki workspaces that is becoming a core XWiki project

2008/1/30, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]>:

> Hi,
>
> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or
> several. Right now we have 4:
> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
> - chronopolys
> - xwiki workspaces
> - sandbox
>
> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Simpler Admin
> 2) Consolidate history
> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example
> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's
> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we
> move things around
> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to point
> to several repos (IDE, etc)
> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,
> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer
>
> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not
> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done before.
>
> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.
>
> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit
> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication based
> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a problem.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>


--
Thomas Mortagne
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Single SVN repository vs several

Jean-Vincent Drean
In reply to this post by vmassol
+1

ps: I used to think that authentication was the main reason of having
several repos.

On Jan 30, 2008 12:04 PM, Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or
> several. Right now we have 4:
> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
> - chronopolys
> - xwiki workspaces
> - sandbox
>
> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Simpler Admin
> 2) Consolidate history
> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example
> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's
> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we
> move things around
> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to point
> to several repos (IDE, etc)
> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,
> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer
>
> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not
> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done before.
>
> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.
>
> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit
> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication based
> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a problem.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Single SVN repository vs several

Raffaello Pelagalli
In reply to this post by vmassol
Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> writes:

> Hi,
>
> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or  
> several. Right now we have 4:
> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
> - chronopolys
> - xwiki workspaces
> - sandbox
>
> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:
>
> 1) Simpler Admin
> 2) Consolidate history
> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example  
> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's  
> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we  
> move things around
> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to point  
> to several repos (IDE, etc)
> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,  
> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer
>
> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not  
> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done before.
>
> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.
>
> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit  
> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication based  
> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a problem.
>
> WDYT?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent

Hi,

I think that it's normal to have separate repositories, at it is
separate projects.

Technicaly there is no problem if you want that xwiki committers can commit on
all the projects (chrono, curriki, workspaces, sandbox, core, etc ...).

The problem is : if you give some rights to someone for committing on sandbox
he will be able to commit on the core if he wants ...

Also, there is not only xwiki opensource repositories on this server, so we
will not change the authentication mechanism, at least not in very near futur.

So here is my -1 for the technical part and another -1 for because I really
think that different projects need to have different repositories :)

And finally here is my +1 to move Curriki, Watch, XE and XEM on there own
repositories, which will be more consistent regarding the way we manage
the different products on xwiki.org.

Best regards,
--
Raffaello Pelagalli
XPertNet - XWiki.com
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Single SVN repository vs several

vmassol
Administrator

On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Raffaello Pelagalli wrote:

> Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> writes:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or
>> several. Right now we have 4:
>> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
>> - chronopolys
>> - xwiki workspaces
>> - sandbox
>>
>> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:
>>
>> 1) Simpler Admin
>> 2) Consolidate history
>> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example
>> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's
>> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we
>> move things around
>> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to  
>> point
>> to several repos (IDE, etc)
>> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,
>> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer
>>
>> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not
>> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done  
>> before.
>>
>> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.
>>
>> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit
>> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication  
>> based
>> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a  
>> problem.
>>
>> WDYT?
>>
>> Thanks
>> -Vincent
>
> Hi,
>
> I think that it's normal to have separate repositories, at it is
> separate projects.
>
> Technicaly there is no problem if you want that xwiki committers can  
> commit on
> all the projects (chrono, curriki, workspaces, sandbox, core,  
> etc ...).
>
> The problem is : if you give some rights to someone for committing  
> on sandbox
> he will be able to commit on the core if he wants ...

  I've explained how to do it. Also this is working very fine in  
Apache land so I really don't see this as a problem.

> Also, there is not only xwiki opensource repositories on this  
> server, so we
> will not change the authentication mechanism, at least not in very  
> near futur.

I don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain more?

> So here is my -1 for the technical part and another -1 for because I  
> really
> think that different projects need to have different repositories :)
>
> And finally here is my +1 to move Curriki, Watch, XE and XEM on  
> there own
> repositories, which will be more consistent regarding the way we  
> manage
> the different products on xwiki.org.

Right now the main argument you give is "it's normal to have separate  
repositories". This sounds like a low argument compared to the ones  
I've given :)

Could you please list specific advantages?

Thanks
-Vincent

_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Single SVN repository vs several

Jerome Velociter
Hello devs,

I resurrect this thread, as I would like to check in a first version of
workspaces in the coming days.

I want to support Vincent's point on external tools. If we go for separate
SVNs, we should be able to have easily  access to the same set of tools we
have on the main one now; and, ideally those tools should be centralized
(for example for fisheye it would mean still being able to see a changelog
cross products).

Although, wouldn't it be more painful to update dependencies for all
products after a release if we have to commit in different repos ?

WDYT ?

Regards,
Jerome.

>
> On Jan 30, 2008, at 2:00 PM, Raffaello Pelagalli wrote:
>
>> Vincent Massol <[hidden email]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> We need to decide if we want to have a single SVN repository or
>>> several. Right now we have 4:
>>> - main xwiki: XE, XEM, Watch, Curriki
>>> - chronopolys
>>> - xwiki workspaces
>>> - sandbox
>>>
>>> I prefer to have a single one for the following reasons:
>>>
>>> 1) Simpler Admin
>>> 2) Consolidate history
>>> 3) Ability to move sources from one project to another. For example
>>> the fact the sandbox is in a separate repo is a real pain since it's
>>> not possible to perform a svn move so we loose the history when we
>>> move things around
>>> 4) Complex to configure. You have to configure all your tools to
>>> point
>>> to several repos (IDE, etc)
>>> 5) Hard to configure external tools and no consolidated search,
>>> stats,etc. For example: ohloh, sourcekibitzer
>>>
>>> Note that Apache has a single repo for all its projects so it's not
>>> like this is something that is weird and that hasn't been done
>>> before.
>>>
>>> To be honest I don't see a single advantage to have several repos.
>>>
>>> However we would need to configure the SVN hooks to send svn commit
>>> emails to different mailing lists and do the user authentication
>>> based
>>> on *.xwiki.org mapped to directories in SVN, but that's not a
>>> problem.
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> -Vincent
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think that it's normal to have separate repositories, at it is
>> separate projects.
>>
>> Technicaly there is no problem if you want that xwiki committers can
>> commit on
>> all the projects (chrono, curriki, workspaces, sandbox, core,
>> etc ...).
>>
>> The problem is : if you give some rights to someone for committing
>> on sandbox
>> he will be able to commit on the core if he wants ...
>
>   I've explained how to do it. Also this is working very fine in
> Apache land so I really don't see this as a problem.
>
>> Also, there is not only xwiki opensource repositories on this
>> server, so we
>> will not change the authentication mechanism, at least not in very
>> near futur.
>
> I don't understand what you mean here. Could you explain more?
>
>> So here is my -1 for the technical part and another -1 for because I
>> really
>> think that different projects need to have different repositories :)
>>
>> And finally here is my +1 to move Curriki, Watch, XE and XEM on
>> there own
>> repositories, which will be more consistent regarding the way we
>> manage
>> the different products on xwiki.org.
>
> Right now the main argument you give is "it's normal to have separate
> repositories". This sounds like a low argument compared to the ones
> I've given :)
>
> Could you please list specific advantages?
>
> Thanks
> -Vincent
>
> _______________________________________________
> devs mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
>


_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs