Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Matthew Thode <prometheanfire@g.o>
Subject: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 08:31:11 -0500
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)

Attachment:
signature.asc (OpenPGP digital signature)
References:
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michael Weber
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Johannes Huber
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by date:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.