On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 09:18, Marcel Wiesweg <marcel.wies...@gmx.de> wrote: > >> The initial idea from the Digikam people was to have 1 repository with: >> - digikam >> - kipi-plugins >> - libkface >> - libkdcraw >> - libkexiv2 >> in the very same repository. >> >> That's what we have indicated that was a bad idea. >> >> That's different than the discussion we have had on this list before about >> splitting or not. In this case it would be combining all kinds of libs >> into one repo. > > Tom as you know, I fully agree now to have split repos for digikam. > The point discussed in this thread here was to have 1 repository with: > - okular > - gwenview > - kolourpaint > - kruler > - ksnapshot > - strigi-analyzer > - libksane > - libkdcraw > - libkexiv2 > - libkipi > in the very same repository. > which looks like a pretty similar idea to me. > > Summarizing what I learnt so far: > - there are advantages to have small, agile repositories > - there are means on a different technical level than "git repository" > to group applications and libs to a module > - splitting a project in git repositories is not a social, but a merely > technical measure
Well no, the coupling and cohesion of a module is both a social and a technical question. To me the whole question (split/not-split) hinges on whether developers routinely make changes to multiple projects at the same time. > leads me to the conclusion that kdegraphics should end up in split repos as > well, maybe also with a shallow superproject repo, at least temporarily. Hopefully you are sharing this conclusion with the kde-graphics community (which might take a bit of asking around to figure out how to contact such an entity if their mailing list isn't used) and not just here! (shallow superproject repo would probably just cause confusion) Ian _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
