> -----Original Message-----
> From: vlad.tepes_at_gmx.net [mailto:vlad.tepes_at_gmx.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:14 AM
> To: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Multiple repositories per project
> hello list,
> in the company i work we have the questionable policy of creating
> repositories for each project by default. in addition to a repository
> named 'src' we will also have one named 'doc' and another named 'data'
> (the latter being empty for almost all projects).
> i have the feeling that this might be a case of over-engineering (and
> to be honest i think it's dumb). but i have no technical arguments
> against this policy either.
> so, is it dumb, is it ok, or is it not worth arguing?
Dumb and worth arguing.
You have to branch and tag three times (once per repository.) This
greatly increases the chances of having the src, docs, and data becoming
out of synch. Which means your baselines are more at risk of being
incorrect. What benefit can justify that risk?
It's also harder to checkout, export, or otherwise pull code from three
different repositories. You have to have three workspaces instead of
one. If you need to research a problem, you have three log histories to
go through. With one repository, I can say "show me what's happened
since day Foo" to see if Alice checked in the corrected documentation
before or after the code drop. With three repositories, you have to
integrate three timelines into one timeline.
If, for some odd reaons, you don't use tags, then a baseline requires
*three* revision numbers and urls. Where are you going to reliably
store that information?
As others have hinted, turn the question around. What is the benefit of
having three repositories?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-03 22:59:37 CET