Hi! On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 21:19:12 +0200, Richard Braun <rbr...@sceen.net> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 01, 2012 at 12:59:47PM +0700, Ivan Shmakov wrote: > > >>>>> Samuel Thibault <samuel.thiba...@gnu.org> writes: > > > > > Should we keep procfs in a separate repository, or merge it into the > > > main hurd repository? > > > > > Generally enough, did we write a guideline somewhere as to what > > > should be in the main hurd repository, or should be separate? > > > > Given that Git has support submodules, but not (AIUI) for > > repository merging and splitting, my opinion would be to keep > > all but the bare minimum off the main Hurd repository. > > > > There could be a kind of hurd-full.git repository, which has all > > the relevant submodules' configuration to tie all the Hurd > > repositories together, though. > > Unless it's very easy to use submodules, we should use one repository. > Other projects with much more content and history have showed it's > perfectly sane to keep that much in one place, and it simplifies keeping > the tightly coupled modules of the Hurd in sync.
On the other Hand, one of the Hurd's unique characteristics is that it is *not* a big monolothic blob like other systems, but instead does have clearly defined interfaces allowing (and encouraging!) for separation of components. I think that keeping our operating system modules separate helps to highlight this fact, which is why I already years ago favored separation over putting it all into one repository. Of course, decoupling stuff too much comes with additional maintenance burden, so we have to set a limit somewhere. But, packaging procfs as its own Debian package (like other translators are too) from its own source tree shouldn't need much maintenance effort, I think? Grüße, Thomas
pgpVQt35HldgU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
