FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-23-2012, 01:28 PM
"Aaron W. Swenson"
 
Default 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/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+85e4ACgkQVxOqA9G7/aDWpgD/SYfC3aOlOP2kAwK3qt81smH8
YWs60Kl77Xx+wIM1jx8A/0PkisxPTsLE5jR59GhaDmC+epoodW1GOak//pAvCmCG
=F8Rw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 05-23-2012, 01:31 PM
Matthew Thode
 
Default 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)
 
Old 05-23-2012, 01:34 PM
Fabio Erculiani
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

Please kill CVS with fire!
I've been waiting for this since 2009.

--
Fabio Erculiani
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:17 PM
Michael Palimaka
 
Default 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/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+82z0ACgkQknrdDGLu8JBUWAD/dmuqyES/mYDrMam+/txnHmgd
VaQaqwHMlwzzqQwbpY4A/0h+5Vp8sLbOE78k4SCaGE2dCQtmeOz0jd1YxkDzP+YW
=jXLQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Another vote for clean cut.
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:39 PM
Alexey Shvetsov
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

+1 for killing cvs


Johannes Huber писал 2012-05-23 15:54:

Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:


-----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/







iF4EAREIAAYFAk+82z0ACgkQknrdDGLu8JBUWAD/dmuqyES/mYDrMam+/txnHmgd



VaQaqwHMlwzzqQwbpY4A/0h+5Vp8sLbOE78k4SCaGE2dCQtmeOz0jd1YxkDzP+YW



=jXLQ



-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


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
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:43 PM
"Anthony G. Basile"
 
Default 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
 
Old 05-23-2012, 02:54 PM
justin
 
Default 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
 
Old 05-23-2012, 04:32 PM
Sergei Trofimovich
 
Default 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)

iEYEARECAAYFAk+9ETgACgkQcaHudmEf86pHTgCgh0lWhRz5VA f0N9xRPOE4gld3
IXIAn1Q9q7BSaIGZpiUHgATng2rBVBWZ
=vbwK
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 05-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Rich Freeman
 
Default 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
 
Old 05-23-2012, 04:33 PM
Michał Górny
 
Default 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!

/me hides...

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:48 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org