Re: [Fwd: CVS to Subversion move progress]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Greg Beaver<greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote: > Daniel O'Connor wrote: >> But what about: >> >>     * pearweb (multiple packages, 1x directory) - suggest merging back >>       into one uberpackage >> > > Hi Daniel, > > Seriously, this is backwards thinking.  The reason the package was split > up was because it was impossible to maintain as one uberpackage (this > may have been before your time in PEAR, I'm not sure). > > This does raise a serious problem with switching to subversion that was > not obvious - tagging is far less flexible than it appears on the > surface.  However, the solution for subpackages is to create a tag for > the subpackage that includes the whole directory, PEAR/Pyrus will only > package up files in the package.xml for the subpackage.  This results in > more stuff being included than we want, but one can't work around this > flaw in subversion very easily. > > More important, however, is a perception I have that there is a growing > movement amongst PEAR developers to adjust everything to the source > control in use by the developers in question.  For instance, the new > namespace proposal is explicitly designed to support git submodules or > subversion externals at the expense of the flexibility of splitting > large packages into smaller components.  Daniel's suggestion proposal is > designed to support subversion tagging at the expense of the same > flexibility. > > What is not acknowledged is that these proposals are designed to work > around shortcomings in the source control systems, and in fact the > suggestions work against some of the strengths of the PEAR installer at > managing complex projects. > > More pointedly: what is the point of using the PEAR installer to manage > your project if you are simply going to use subversion or git to manage > dependencies?  Are we seeing a paradigm shift in PEAR that the installer > simply isn't worth using at all?  If so, I better damn well hear that > now explicitly so I can stop wasting my time on pyrus. > > Thanks, > Greg > I'd agree that dependency management is what the installer is there for. The beauty is that the installer works regardless of the VCS and IMHO there's no reason to shift that focus away. Whatever you want to use underneath it -- fine. Even CVS. I'm a fan of git, but let's not chain ourselves to "it". I'm sure the next revolution in VCS is already approaching and I don't want to bend over backwards each time some people think it's cooler to use something else. ;-) Can someone enlighten me what exactly is the idea when you guys talk about "uberpackages"? What issue is it trying to solve, I couldn't decipher that from the original email. Is the idea to run code straight from the VCS? Also, I don't see the short comings in tagging with SVN, and I'm not sure what either one of you (Daniel and Greg) is trying to solve. Also, wouldn't it be more complicated to enhance a sub package (feature sub set) when it's all stuck in the same repository? Till