[Savannah-hackers-public] Re: Overwriting bare repositories' master

[Sylvain Beucler]

On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 05:18:58PM +0100, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
> Sylvain Beucler escreveu:
> >>>It is better if we get a few interested users to use the service, so
> >>>as to steer early in the right direction.
> >>OK. What would be your proposal?  We can move our repo from repo.or.cz 
> >>to savannah, and leave the CVS import cron running on lilypond.org. Do 
> >>you want to do it now, or do you need some time?
> >>
> >>One thing that I wanted to remark: I think it's best to have not one 
> >>repo per project, but rather, one repository per module. We have a bunch 
> >>of modules that are related to LilyPond, but are on different release 
> >>schedules.
> >
> >We can create the repository now.
> 
> Ok, I will discuss with Jan whether the current repo is good enough for 
> official installation.
> 
> >I see that at repo.or.cz this means 'fork' rather than
> >'subproject'. Maybe that'll become something like:
> >/srv/git/project.git
> >/srv/git/project/s/subproject.git
> >/srv/git/project/f/subproject.git
> >if this is needed.
> >
> >What would you need?
> 
> we will probably need (in the long run): the following subprojects:
> 
>  - lilypond
>  - newweb
>  - workbook
>  - ikebana
>  - mac-installer
>  - gub
> 
> currently, we also have a module mftrace, but I think it would be better 
> to have that as a separate project.

Ok, current I created http://git.sv.gnu.org/r/lilypond.git/ . It will
start appearing at http://git.sv.gnu.org/gitweb/ when non-empty.


> >Also, is there a difficulty in using several heads instead of several
> >repositories? That is, why not "one head per module" instead of "one
> >repository per module"?
> 
> GIT repositories can contain multiple branches, and GIT encourages to 
> use them, although some people seem to find it confusing (when compared 
> to other systems)

Ok. What I wonder is why you'd rather have separate sub-repositories
then :)

-- 
Sylvain