hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

On Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 12:01:21PM +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:

> I think most of the issues with the conversion have been worked
> out, and I'd like to make this available to the World in some way.
> I was wondering whether it makes sense to host something like this
> on Fedora infrastructure.

There seemed to be a couple of folks against this, and a
couple in favor, but no decision either way.

Anyone else have opinions/ideas about this?

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

Lennert Buytenhek wrote:

Hi,

For a while now, I've been maintaining a git conversion of the
Fedora CVS tree, pulling in a copy of the CVS tree via rsync, and
running some local scripts to convert that to git, incrementally
updating the git tree as commits are made to the CVS tree.

(For more background info, see here:)

https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-November/msg00561.html

I think most of the issues with the conversion have been worked
out, and I'd like to make this available to the World in some way.
I was wondering whether it makes sense to host something like this
on Fedora infrastructure.

Note that this is _not_ a proposal to replace CVS by git.

The git tree is currently a read-only (slave) version of the CVS
tree, and I expect it to stay that way for some time. But even though
Fedora isn't switching VCSes at this point, I think it would still
make sense to have git/hg/random-other-VCS conversions of the Fedora
CVS tree publically available, for a number of reasons:
- Give package maintainers the option of working with their favorite
VCS for local development (while continuing to use CVS when
committing things upstream.)
- All the advantages of other version control systems over CVS, e.g.:
- Give people the opportunity to pull a local copy of the entire
tree or parts of the tree for local browsing of packages and
their history without having to go through the server (CVS
doesn't support this, although you _could_ just rsync the
entire CVS tree to your local machine...)
- Allow stacking commits, reverting commits, merging commits,
splitting commits, reordering commits, etc., before the changes
are pushed into the CVS tree and become final.
- Allow easy maintaining of local branches of packages.

What would be needed to host this on Fedora infrastructure:
- Some disk space. The size of the converted git tree is about 725
megabytes after packing, but for experimenting it would be good to
have a bit more space available, say, 10G or so.
- Open ports. For browsing the git tree via the web, port 80 access
would be needed, and for allowing people to clone the tree over
git://, port 9418 access would be useful.
- Read-only access to the ,v files in the CVS tree, say, over NFS.

Ideas?




This sounds like something we could do, but I don't think we should do
it. For one, after we move the hosted stuff away from cvs-int, that box
will get a complete makover and one that, as far as I can tell, won't
include git. I'm not sure what problem this solves really.


If there is a real need in Fedora to use git, why not just put together
a proposal for migrating cvs to git? Lots of people have tried this,
its not an easy task. But adding an additional SCM for GIT which is
JUST a copy of what's in CVS sounds like a waste of our resources. Why
not also do SVN, BZR and Mercurial?


-Mike

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@redhat.com> wrote:
> This sounds like something we could do, but I don't think we should do
> it. For one, after we move the hosted stuff away from cvs-int, that
> box will get a complete makover and one that, as far as I can tell,
> won't include git. I'm not sure what problem this solves really.
>
> If there is a real need in Fedora to use git, why not just put
> together a proposal for migrating cvs to git? Lots of people have

Hi Mike,

That's a much bigger shift, and will probably take a long time
to realize. On the other hand, providing a service like this is easy,
and might help nay-sayers realize the value. In the mean time,
people who find it useful get the benefit right away.

> tried this, its not an easy task. But adding an additional SCM for
> GIT which is JUST a copy of what's in CVS sounds like a waste of our
> resources. Why not also do SVN, BZR and Mercurial?

IMHO, they're not as useful.

If Fedora doesn't want to do this, I can probably set up
something independent and provide public git:// access.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 17:25 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:

> At 5GB+, (4.5GB for a copy of the cvs repo + 700MB for git) that's too
> heavy for me. And besides, it'd really be better under the Fedora
> umbrella. Seeing as how much more efficient the git protocol is,
> if a few people switch to it from cvs, it'd actually decrease network
> bandwidth requirements.

The problem is we're not running out of network bandwidth most of the
time. We're running out of disk space. Pretty badly, too.

-sv


_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@redhat.com> wrote:
> Jim Meyering wrote:
>> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> tried this, its not an easy task. But adding an additional SCM for
>>> GIT which is JUST a copy of what's in CVS sounds like a waste of our
>>> resources. Why not also do SVN, BZR and Mercurial?
>>
>> IMHO, they're not as useful.
>
> And thats the real trick, I'd imagine the mercurial, svn and bzr guys
> would disagree with you.
>
>> If Fedora doesn't want to do this, I can probably set up
>> something independent and provide public git:// access.
>
> If someone else wants to host it I'm all for it, we can certainly make
> it easier to get at the raw CVS repo. If the other officers disagree
> please let it be known, but this sounds more like a distraction/one
> off then something that adds value to our infrastructure.

At 5GB+, (4.5GB for a copy of the cvs repo + 700MB for git) that's too
heavy for me. And besides, it'd really be better under the Fedora
umbrella. Seeing as how much more efficient the git protocol is,
if a few people switch to it from cvs, it'd actually decrease network
bandwidth requirements.

Is there anything I can do to revive this idea?
For example, I'd be happy to own and set up the tools/infrastructure
required to make it all work (I've already done this on three public servers).
All I'd need is an open git port and access to the config files.

Jim

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list

hosting git conversion of Fedora CVS tree on fedora infrastructure?
 

seth vidal <skvidal@fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 17:25 +0100, Jim Meyering wrote:
>
>> At 5GB+, (4.5GB for a copy of the cvs repo + 700MB for git) that's too
>> heavy for me. And besides, it'd really be better under the Fedora
>> umbrella. Seeing as how much more efficient the git protocol is,
>> if a few people switch to it from cvs, it'd actually decrease network
>> bandwidth requirements.
>
> The problem is we're not running out of network bandwidth most of the
> time. We're running out of disk space. Pretty badly, too.

One big advantage to switching from CVS to git is the savings in
disk space. With the example above it's pretty obvious: you can
save exactly the same information using git in 1/6 to 1/4th the space.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list
Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list