[Xcb] A question about XCB's Git repository layout

[Eric Anholt]

On Wed, 2006-07-26 at 07:51 -0700, Ian Osgood wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> On Jul 25, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Eric Anholt wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 22:27 +0100, Robert Bragg wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> Jamey has asked me to forward this question here so everyone can
> >> "fight it out"
> >>
> >> <quote>
> >> Basically I have been trying to put together a jhbuild moduleset for
> >> X.org that will pull e.g. libX11 and XCB from their new git
> >> repositories.
> >>
> >> This has gone smoothly for all git repositories except XCBs :-)
> >>
> >> The reason stems from the facts that git doesn't seem to let you  
> >> clone
> >> arbitrary subdirectories of a repository, and jhbuild assumes that
> >> there will be a autogen.sh at the top of any repository you ask it to
> >> check out.
> >>
> >> To work around this locally I wrote a small patch for jhbuild that
> >> lets you optionally specify a particular subdirectory of a repository
> >> to find the autogen.sh, and that seems to work nicely for me.
> >>
> >> I have passed the patch on to James Henstridge, but in his reply  
> >> to me
> >> he had wondered if the layout of the XCB repository was ideal and if
> >> it could be changed. Suggesting that perhaps having separate
> >> repositories for each module might make it easier to deal with  
> >> actions
> >> such as branching/merging. A minor issue I see myself is just that of
> >> consistency with other x.org git modules. (Probably a bit early to
> >> talk about consistency but e.g. libXrandr and randrproto are in
> >> seperate git repositories.)
> >>
> >> On the other hand I suppose having separate repositories would  
> >> require
> >> multiple check-in/merge procedures for widespread changes. If the
> >> sub-modules are tightly coupled by nature - making such changes  
> >> common
> >> - I could see an advantage to a single repository. Interestingly if I
> >> understood James correctly he was suggesting that the opposite -  
> >> being
> >> able to merge such widespread changes piecemeal - might be  
> >> preferable,
> >> so this may all be a game of pros and cons and those with the biggest
> >> fists win.
> >>
> >> I'm just curious to know if this has been considered before and
> >> perhaps if there are other reasons to keep it as is or otherwise?
> >> </quote>
> >>
> >> Finally; this was Jamey's initial response to kick things off:
> >>
> >>> My first reaction is, "That would be painful for us and jhbuild  
> >>> shouldn't
> >>> assume that anyway," but I'd like advice from others...
> >
> > I've also been working on the jhbuild setup for xorg, for the  
> > purpose of
> > getting the tinderbox alive again in some form.  xcb was also a
> > stumbling block, and jamesh is still wondering if there's been any
> > resolution from xcb folks on whether or not they'd rearrange the repo.
> > Since the modules in xcb are presumably going to be releasing
> > separately, it does seem to make sense to me that there would be
> > repositories split along module lines rather than project lines.
> >
> > -- 
> > Eric Anholt                             anholt at FreeBSD.org
> > eric at anholt.net                         eric.anholt at intel.com
> 
> Back on June 8, Josh thought that jhbuild should not make assumptions  
> about the location of autogen.sh (that is, Robert Bragg should commit  
> his patch to jhbuild).
> 
> Josh also noted that it is probably time to split the repository in  
> any case. Against the disadvantages of having multiple things to pull  
> and dependency checking to add, there are the advantages of being  
> able to tag and release the repositories separately.
> 
> I'm fine either way. There seem to be a zillion freedesktop  
> repositories already, who would notice four more? Having 3-5  
> repositories to refresh isn't so bad compared to maintaining the  
> hundred old protos, libs, and apps.
> 
> On the practical side, XCB development has slowed down recently. Who  
> will do the work of splitting the repository?

I would be perfectly willing to, I'm just waiting to hear a consensus,
which for me includes Jamey I think.

-- 
Eric Anholt                     anholt at FreeBSD.org
eric at anholt.net                 eric.anholt at intel.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xcb/attachments/20060726/49516dc6/attachment.pgp