On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:

On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:

I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:

yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
yocto-contrib-layer-2.git

This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
the other seemed clunky.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)

I think there are three elements to this:

a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and
find it easiest to think in those terms.
b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as
the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple
projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn
repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in
the minority.
c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to
single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its
authors do.

Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
to use git in this way.

Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways
we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?

Cheers,

Richard