Re: [RFC] Repository layout change / Zmiana układu repo

[Patryk Zawadzki]

On 5/14/07, Radoslaw Zielinski <radek at pld-linux.org> wrote:
> Jan Rekorajski <baggins at sith.mimuw.edu.pl> [14-05-2007 01:05]:
> > Why worse?
> To avoid making up reasons (and repeating ourselves about excessive
> metadata): I would find this structure more annoying.  Longer paths,
> the need for mkdir.

Is there any real problem? The one outlined above involves creating
*one* directory each time you add a *new* spec file to the repo. I
hardly see this as an issue.

> > Anything to back up this statement?  There are more VCSs than just CVS
> > or SVN.
> Widely used (in OSS world)?  Come on...  Everything (?) else features
> and focuses on distributed repositories, which we don't need.

we don't use !== (we don't need && we can't take advantage of)

> If there existed a better VCS for our needs, someone would outline the
> gains and we'd have switched already.

This thread is about reorganizing the repo to make it more usable to
people who have lots of files checked out and would really appreciate
some structure to keep them bound together.

This thread is not about SVN/GIT/name-your-RCS-of-choice.

Anyway, I like the proposed structure and I really feel it gives us
more than it takes away (SOURCES as a flat directory is just a huge
mess, I don't recall doing "cvs ci SOURCES" as a whole. Ever).

-- 
Patryk Zawadzki
Generated Content