Re: procfs, separate repo?

[Thomas Schwinge]

Hi!

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:19:12 +0200, Richard Braun <rbraun@sceen.net> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:59:47PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> > >>>>> Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@gnu.org> writes:
> > 
> >  > Should we keep procfs in a separate repository, or merge it into the
> >  > main hurd repository?
> > 
> >  > Generally enough, did we write a guideline somewhere as to what
> >  > should be in the main hurd repository, or should be separate?
> > 
> >     Given that Git has support submodules, but not (AIUI) for
> >     repository merging and splitting, my opinion would be to keep
> >     all but the bare minimum off the main Hurd repository.
> > 
> >     There could be a kind of hurd-full.git repository, which has all
> >     the relevant submodules' configuration to tie all the Hurd
> >     repositories together, though.
> 
> Unless it's very easy to use submodules, we should use one repository.
> Other projects with much more content and history have showed it's
> perfectly sane to keep that much in one place, and it simplifies keeping
> the tightly coupled modules of the Hurd in sync.

On the other Hand, one of the Hurd's unique characteristics is that it is
*not* a big monolothic blob like other systems, but instead does have
clearly defined interfaces allowing (and encouraging!) for separation of
components.  I think that keeping our operating system modules separate
helps to highlight this fact, which is why I already years ago favored
separation over putting it all into one repository.  Of course,
decoupling stuff too much comes with additional maintenance burden, so we
have to set a limit somewhere.  But, packaging procfs as its own Debian
package (like other translators are too) from its own source tree
shouldn't need much maintenance effort, I think?


Grüße,
 Thomas

pgpIRUT4X_z0L.pgp
Description: PGP signature