[commits] [Wiki] created: Project/SplitGitRepo

[Michael Slusarz]

slusarz  Wed, 19 Jun 2013 23:01:59 -0600

Created page: http://wiki.horde.org/Project/SplitGitRepo

[[toc]]

+ Project Name

Split Git Repo into individual components.

++ Bugs

N/A

++ People

All developers.

++ Description

 From dev mailing list:

Going to try to sum up what I think is forming as a consensus.

# Moving applications and framework packages to separate repos seems  
to be the most supported idea.
  * GitHub allows unlimited public repos, so we are good there
  * Can maintain all history.  See  
https://help.github.com/articles/splitting-a-subpath-out-into-a-new-repo
  * Might be a bit more unwieldy to work with (current monolithic repo  
allows commits across applications; but it might be a good thing to  
require different commits for each application for a more granular  
approach at adding features/fixing bugs.)
# Talk of using git subtree(?)
  * http://log.pardus.de/2012/08/modular-git-with-git-subtree.html
  * However, this approach seems to completely neglect the current  
issue of "what should the master branch be?" or whether this question  
can even be properly solved when dealing with so many disparate pieces
# Worries about scripting to setup repos
  * Argument was made that it only takes 2 lines currently to create  
an installation.
  * However recent discussion on mailing list pointed out it is  
extremely difficult for non-developers to set up an installation using  
git.  So the current scripts aren't perfect by any means.
  * Additionally, whatever way we switch to will also need to be  
scripted so we would be in no different place than we are currently.
  * No solution is going to work out-of-the-box.
  * Use PHP Composer to help automate the process of generating a  
usable build from git (http://getcomposer.org/).

...

And the last time I chatted with Nils about composer it didn't have  
support for the installation of web assets - so for Horde the result  
would be a mixture of using composer and PEAR package definitions. I  
have no clue how much work it would be to get composer on par with  
PEAR in that area. Nils suggested that this should not be too hard.  
But the components helper we have should also be capable of managing  
PEAR and composer package definitions in parallel.
I would assume we would do something like maintain package.xml files  
and then use the components script to create a composer.json file.  We  
could probably leverage this code:

https://github.com/claylo/conductor

BTW, adding yet another advantage to separate repositories: this  
greatly simplifies/improves continuous integration reporting.  Not  
only does this drastically take the time to check a commit, it more  
directly targets the actual changes the commit made.

++ Resources

...

----
Back to the ((Projects|Project List))