[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions
From: |
Dimitrie O. Paun |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions |
Date: |
Tue, 16 Nov 2004 00:28:28 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Nov 15, 2004 at 02:08:52PM -0600, John A Meinel wrote:
> Well, I can't say that I've created very large archives, but I do have
> an archive with lots of projects. Right now I have about 90 projects in
> my archive.
How big of an archive do you have with so many project, if I may ask?
Is performance good?
> Also, because of how version numbers work, we wanted a separate project
> (and thus separate version) for every independent piece. Our work
> involves a lot of pluggable libraries, so each one is it's own category.
> This complicates things a little, as if you are doing multi-category
> changes you have to remember to commit in each one. And you lose some of
> the effect of having all changes bundled up into changesets (changing a
> library means you have to change the code that uses it, but these are 2
> separate commits.)
This seems like a very good idea. I guess the only way to be able to
atomically commit across multiple such libraries would be to have them
all just as directories in your project. Not that appealing.
> So in your case, I might have the archive:
>
> address@hidden
>
> With the projects:
>
> mozilla--dev--1.7
> firefox--dev--1.0
> libpr0n--dev--1.0
> nprs--dev--1.0 <-- or whatever the mozilla portable runtime is called.
> radial-context--dev--1.6 <- this is one of the mozilla extensions
> etc.
>
> Basically anything that is considered a library and would be subject to
> reuse gets it's own category.
Yes, this seems like a reasonable approach that fits nicely into the
arch organization, but I'm still not happy with the 2004 in the
archive name :)
> Now, I might break things up into archives based on major project, so
> there would be a address@hidden, address@hidden,
> address@hidden (possibly postfixing these with -2004).
This seems to me like a very good idea, but then again, I'm just
getting into arch <g>
> creating lots of archives doesn't really hurt, as arch merges between
> them rather easily. But I like to do it at logical big boundaries, and
> then use logical small boundaries (like libs) to determine categories.
I can buy the logical argument, but if splitting the archives on a
project basis can help me get rid of the year in the archive name,
I see little reason not to have a address@hidden, or
even a address@hidden archive.
--
Dimi.
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, (continued)
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Miles Bader, 2004/11/15
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions, John A Meinel, 2004/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Miles Bader, 2004/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, John A Meinel, 2004/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Dimitrie O. Paun, 2004/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Aaron Bentley, 2004/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Dustin Sallings, 2004/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Miles Bader, 2004/11/16
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Dimitrie O. Paun, 2004/11/16
- [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Archives vs. categories vs. versions, Anand Kumria, 2004/11/16
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Archives vs. categories vs. versions,
Dimitrie O. Paun <=