Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Michael Weber <xmw@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 12:44:08
Message-Id: 4FBCDB3D.1070009@gentoo.org
-----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-----

Replies