1 |
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Rafael Goncalves Martins |
2 |
<rafaelmartins@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
> Maybe someone with good cvs knowledge can contribute a hook for irker |
4 |
> [1], so we can have #gentoo-commits flooding our irc clients again! :) |
5 |
|
6 |
Why exactly are we still using cvs? Rather than building enhancements |
7 |
for cvs, why not just migrate everything to git, and spend our time |
8 |
building the git hooks/etc necessary to make this work? |
9 |
|
10 |
Looking at the tracker [1], we need a pre-upload hook (I'm not quite |
11 |
sure why), an rsync conversion script, the ability to validate the |
12 |
converted tree, and documentation. There is still an open bug for |
13 |
commit signing, and I'm not quite sure why as this was implemented. |
14 |
|
15 |
It seems like a lot has already been done with validation. Checking |
16 |
the active tree is pretty trivial - just compare the trees and they |
17 |
should be the same. I guess we need to check history, but it seems to |
18 |
me like the risk of problems is low, and if we just keep a backup of |
19 |
the cvs repository if there is ever a concern about who made some |
20 |
commit 5 years ago we can always dig it up. |
21 |
|
22 |
It really seems to me like little remains to be done here. Mostly we |
23 |
just need somebody to push a decision on things like workflow. A few |
24 |
of the bugs have comments like "no sense working on this with other |
25 |
stuff still needed" - which seems to be outdated thinking with so |
26 |
little left to do. |
27 |
|
28 |
Am I missing some big concern that just isn't obvious in these bugs? |
29 |
|
30 |
I also fear that we're refusing to take action on a great solution |
31 |
because it isn't a perfect solution. Nobody in the world is using |
32 |
tree-signing with git, and we aren't really using it in cvs either. |
33 |
We now have the ability to do it with git, but depending on workflow |
34 |
3rd-party signatures might not end up in the history of head, or we |
35 |
might not be able to verify them in an automated fashion. Honestly, I |
36 |
think the appropriate response here is whoop-de-doo. We can't do any |
37 |
of that stuff with cvs, but moving to git would have a lot of other |
38 |
benefits. We can always change our processes later once somebody has |
39 |
a solution for the signing problem. Right now we're making do without |
40 |
it on cvs, and so is every other project using git. We can also |
41 |
continue to sign manifests as a workaround, which is what we'll be |
42 |
doing anyway if we never migrate to git. |
43 |
|
44 |
The git migration just strikes me as one of those cases where anybody |
45 |
is free to come up with a reason not to use something, but nobody has |
46 |
to defend keeping the status quo. I think the question isn't whether |
47 |
there is anything wrong with using git, but whether the problems with |
48 |
git are worse than the problems we already have. |
49 |
|
50 |
But, hey, if somebody wants to write an irc bot that posts cvs |
51 |
commits, knock yourself out. |
52 |
|
53 |
Rich |
54 |
|
55 |
[1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 |