On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Sylvain Beucler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My main concern is: will this fit all VCSes? Though, maybe we can just > add a separate joined table if a VCS requires additional fields . > > 'contact' is not used by 'bzr' afaics; maybe that field can be just > ignored by the bzr backend, or maybe the field can be disabled in the > edit form (so users don't expect it to be used). >
I think it can also be used, not for any bzr internals, but just to provide information. That is, there could be a page (read-only) or existing one, providing repository description and contact information. > > The alternate way is to create a specific table for each VCS, but this > sounds much more difficult to me anyway. > And it likely has performance penalties. For example, if you want to obtain all the repositories that 'show_in_source_menu', with one table it can be done at once with a simple select. The other way would mean as many selects as activated VCS (which is not a lot). > > I'd suggest changing 'is_default' to 'show_in_source_menu'. This way, > main repositories would be proeminently displayed in the "Source Code" > menu, as well as in the project homepage. Other repositories would be > displayed in a separate "other repositories" page; this would exclude, > for example, experimental repos and obsolete repos (such as CVS repos > if you switched to Mercurial, but still wish to keep the old CVS > around :)). > > The bottom line is: I think some project will have several main > repositories (I do :)). > OK, that makes more sense. > > I think listing all repositories at once is easier to edit. > OK. Aleix
