Re: LDAP SDK and source repositories

On 27/07/2009 16:29, Serge Gautherie wrote:
> Mark Banner wrote:
>> a) Move LDAP SDK development to Mercurial.
>>
>> The slight downside of this for comm-central is that comm-central
>> would have to decide what to do with its current directory/xpcom files
>
> Another downside is that c-c (and other projects) would have to pull the
> whole ldap repo, instead of just the (c-)sdk directory it needs.

The "whole ldap repo" is actually quite small relatively speaking, I 
don't think that would be an issue.

> Fwiw, a (Mercurial 1.3, "experimental") solution could be
> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/NestedRepositories
> http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/subrepos
> The ldap developers could pull the main (+ nested) repo(s) (if they need
> one),
> projects could pull the sdk they need only :-)

Yes, that is EXPERIMENTAL. Looking at the list of details there are 
quite a few known issues there at the moment.

>> For comm-central I would recommend going for the importing the source
>> of a specific tagged version directly into comm-central
>
> That would be the simpliest way.
>
> Yet, I'm not sure I like it:
> *No more 'client.py --skip-ldap', though I guess it's rarely used.

--skip-ldap only stops you getting the source. It doesn't control 
building which if anything is the more important option.

> *Probably no history between the imported versions.

Nope, but that isn't a major issue IMHO because the main repo would have 
that if you're really looking for a bug.

> *Newer checkins not imported so much harder to use the import to
> contribute to c-sdk.

We have that issue at the moment. I don't see c-c devs doing major 
development on the c-sdk at the moment so I don't think that is a real 
barrier.

> I think managing a separate (c-sdk only) (mirror) repo would not be
> really harder and have more uses than importing into c-c.

I just don't see a major developmental need for it.

Standard8