Splitting the repos...
patrick at cloke.us
Thu Apr 7 14:47:51 EDT 2016
First off I'll say that splitting this out would like making building
libpurple for Instantbird easier, so that'd be nice...
It might make development harder, however. This is from my experiences
developing on Instantbird which has components across 3 repositories:
mozilla-central (UI core, networking, security, etc. from Firefox),
comm-central (Instantbird and Thunderbird code), purplexpcom (libpurple
and XPCOM interfaces to libpurple):
* It is significantly more difficult to get new people set-up if they
need to pull multiple repositories and can be more confusing to
* Mass changes over multiple repositories can become harder (e.g.
renaming things, changing the build system, etc.).
* Building can become more frustrating: you need to ensure you have
corresponding revisions of both repositories that build together.
* People might update a single repository and forget to update others
(e.g. a Finch developer might make changes to Finch and
corresponding libpurple changes; but not update Pidgin for those
I've also tried to run separate repositories in work environments in
various environments (usually based on Git)...I've found they always
fail miserably. (Keeping versions in sync without real rules and
interfaces is a huge pain.) Things like git submodules/Mercurial
sub-repos make this a little easier by pointing to a known "working
revision", but then make it difficult to work on the bleeding edge
(tip/master) in these systems.
Some of the big companies, e.g. Facebook, use a single repository:
"Our code base has grown organically and its internal dependencies
are very complex. We could have spent a lot of time making it more
modular in a way that would be friendly to a source control tool,
but there are a number of benefits to using a single repository.
Even at our current scale, we often make large changes throughout
our code base, and having a single repository is useful for
continuous modernization. Splitting it up would make large, atomic
refactorings more difficult. On top of that, the idea that the
scaling constraints of our source control system should dictate our
code structure just doesn't sit well with us." -- Durham Goode,
Siddharth P Agarwal
I think that Google also does this
Overall I'd say: think very carefully about why you're doing this and if
it will really help anything. If you plan to do this, invest in some
tooling around it (e.g. make it easy to update to compatible versions of
all repositories without thinking much).
On 4/7/16 10:19 AM, Gary Kramlich wrote:
> This has been brought up in devel at conference.pidgin.im
> <mailto:devel at conference.pidgin.im> recently and I'd like to actually
> discuss it here where everyone can see it. I've been waiting to bring
> it up until I had more of the CI stuff setup, but now is as good of a
> time as any.
> As you may or may not know, I strongly support splitting the repo into
> libpurple, pidgin, libgnt, and finch repos. I would also like to
> split out some of our less commonly used protocol plugins (namely
> meanwhile and zephyr) to separate repos to get the dependency and
> build complexity down.
> For most developers, this means you'll have to build an libpurple and
> or libgnt separately. However, once all of the CI stuff is setup, if
> you just want to work on pidgin or finch you shouldn't have to compile
> libpurple and libgnt separately anymore since you can pull them out of
> the CI artifacts.
> At any rate, discuss! :)
> Gary Kramlich <grim at reaperworld.com <mailto:grim at reaperworld.com>>
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel