Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 09:25 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
>>
>> Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
>> RESO/WONT-FIX "testing git-cvsserver", make a "clean cut" and
>> remove this bug from the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration
>> to git".
>>
>
> +1
>
> Please cut cvs support once and for all.
>
+1 for clean cut
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On 05/23/2012 07:54 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:
> Hi,
>
> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2].
>
> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
> access to the portage tree.
>
> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load).
>
> "testing git-cvsserver" proses "Clean cut" with the additional ability
> to continue using cvs update/commit, - in best case - on the old
> checkout w/o alteration on the developers side.
>
> "Clean cut" forces us to clean up out dirty checkouts (I have some
> added directories, added ebuilds i hesitated to `repoman commit`).
> Plus we have to alter all our hot-wired portage mangling scripts from
> cvs'ish to git'ish (I use my read/write checkout as portage tree (cvs
> checkout + egencache for checkout) and have an automated google-chrome
> bump script). But this can be accomplished on a per developer basis,
> and slackers don't stall the process.
>
> "testing git-cvsserver" forces us all to test these cvs'ish scripts
> and behaviours against a git-cvsserver and report.
> We all know that this test-runs will never happen, stalling this bug
> till infinity.
> Plus infra/"subset of devs marshalling the migration" get stuck
> between fixing git issues and git-cvsserver.
>
> *if you still read this* *wow*
>
> Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
> RESO/WONT-FIX "testing git-cvsserver", make a "clean cut" and remove
> this bug from the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git".
>
> My lengthy 2 cents.
>
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531
> [2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333699
> [3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333705#c2
>
> I support RESOLUTION WONTFIX, if nobody cares about the bug since it was
> opened it is obvious out of interest. There is no reason to support jurassic
> software.
>
> Clean cut++
>
> Cheers
clean-cut++
--
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)
05-23-2012, 01:34 PM
Fabio Erculiani
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Please kill CVS with fire!
I've been waiting for this since 2009.
--
Fabio Erculiani
05-23-2012, 02:17 PM
Michael Palimaka
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On 2012-05-23 22:42, Michael Weber wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
[1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
access to the portage tree.
"Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load).
"testing git-cvsserver" proses "Clean cut" with the additional ability
to continue using cvs update/commit, - in best case - on the old
checkout w/o alteration on the developers side.
"Clean cut" forces us to clean up out dirty checkouts (I have some
added directories, added ebuilds i hesitated to `repoman commit`).
Plus we have to alter all our hot-wired portage mangling scripts from
cvs'ish to git'ish (I use my read/write checkout as portage tree (cvs
checkout + egencache for checkout) and have an automated google-chrome
bump script). But this can be accomplished on a per developer basis,
and slackers don't stall the process.
"testing git-cvsserver" forces us all to test these cvs'ish scripts
and behaviours against a git-cvsserver and report.
We all know that this test-runs will never happen, stalling this bug
till infinity.
Plus infra/"subset of devs marshalling the migration" get stuck
between fixing git issues and git-cvsserver.
*if you still read this* *wow*
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX "testing git-cvsserver", make a "clean cut" and remove
this bug from the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git".
My lengthy 2 cents.
[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531
[2] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333699
[3] https://bugs.gentoo.org/333705#c2
- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
I support RESOLUTION WONTFIX, if nobody cares about the bug since it
was opened it is obvious out of interest. There is no reason to
support jurassic software.
Clean cut++
Cheers
--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
05-23-2012, 02:43 PM
"Anthony G. Basile"
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On 05/23/2012 10:39 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
+1 for killing cvs
Looks like the bloodbath begins. I too am in favor of killing cvs.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail : blueness@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88 33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
GnuPG ID : D0455535
05-23-2012, 02:54 PM
justin
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On 23/05/12 14:42, Michael Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2].
>
> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
> access to the portage tree.
>
> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
I want to see to it gone. +1
05-23-2012, 04:32 PM
Sergei Trofimovich
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
+1 for git switch.
git-cvsserver would make sense if it would be completely transparent
for cvs client. and it's not. so why bother setuping fragile things?
- --
Sergei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Looks like the bloodbath begins. *I too am in favor of killing cvs.
Please, let it die. I'll miss my scripts, but I'll gladly deal with
that over whatever breakage comes along every time some cvs plugin
messes up the tree, or we can't use some useful git feature because
cvs amazingly enough behaves like an scm invented 20 years ago.
Rich
05-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Michał Górny
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:42:37 +0200
Michael Weber <xmw@gentoo.org> wrote:
> *if you still read this* *wow*
>
> Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
> RESO/WONT-FIX "testing git-cvsserver", make a "clean cut" and remove
> this bug from the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git".
Kill it! And while we're at it, kill ChangeLogs as well!
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
