| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Matt Mackall | Apr 14, 2011 1:00 pm | |
| Patrick Mézard | Apr 14, 2011 1:40 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | Apr 14, 2011 2:06 pm | |
| Bryan O'Sullivan | Apr 14, 2011 2:13 pm | |
| Matt Mackall | Apr 14, 2011 3:54 pm | |
| Johannes Totz | Apr 14, 2011 6:03 pm | |
| Benoît Allard | Apr 15, 2011 7:31 am | |
| Greg Ward | Apr 17, 2011 4:19 pm | |
| Benoît Allard | Apr 18, 2011 2:46 am | |
| Steve Losh | Apr 19, 2011 7:38 pm |
| Subject: | A thought on subrepos | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Matt Mackall (mp...@selenic.com) | |
| Date: | Apr 14, 2011 1:00:01 pm | |
| List: | com.selenic.mercurial-devel | |
It seems many projects with subrepos are structured like:
app/ <- main repo lib/ <- a subrepo
This is perhaps the most obvious way to do things, but is not really ideal. A better way is:
build/ <- main repo app/ <- subrepo lib/ <- subrepo
For starters, this does away with most of the "I didn't mean to recursively commit" issues as commits at the top-level will be much less common.
This also greatly lowers the degree of dependence between app/ and lib/, but still gives you the ability to commit and tag coherent combinations of app and lib.
A general statement of this approach is: "if a repo contains real code, it shouldn't contain subrepos."
-- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
_______________________________________________ Mercurial-devel mailing list Merc...@selenic.com http://selenic.com/mailman/listinfo/mercurial-devel





