[xwiki-devs] Single SVN repository vs several - xwiki-devs@xwiki.org

Thomas Mortagne

30 Jan 30 Jan

12:21 p.m.

+1 for me especially for xwiki workspaces that is becoming a core XWiki project 2008/1/30, Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net>et>:

...

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 devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

-- Thomas Mortagne

Reply

Raffaello Pelagalli

2 p.m.

Vincent Massol <vincent(a)massol.net> 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

Reply

Jerome Velociter

25 Feb 25 Feb

6:03 a.m.

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 <vincent(a)massol.net> 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 devs(a)xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs

Reply