| 1 |
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 9:39 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michael Mol wrote: |
| 3 |
>> So, I joined this list a few hours ago. If Rich reposted any of the |
| 4 |
>> discussion over here, it must have been before I joined the list. |
| 5 |
>> Could I request a repost? (I presume the archives are still down, or I |
| 6 |
>> would have been updated when that bug got resolved...) |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> He posted this a bit ago: |
| 10 |
> [start quote] |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Re-posting for discussion on gentoo-scm (apologies if this is a dupe, |
| 13 |
> but I'm pretty sure I wasn't subscribed for the last attempt): |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Looking at the tracker [1], we need a pre-upload hook (I'm not quite |
| 16 |
> sure why), an rsync conversion script, the ability to validate the |
| 17 |
> converted tree, and documentation. There is still an open bug for |
| 18 |
> commit signing, and I'm not quite sure why as this was implemented. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> It seems like a lot has already been done with validation. Checking |
| 21 |
> the active tree is pretty trivial - just compare the trees and they |
| 22 |
> should be the same. I guess we need to check history, but it seems to |
| 23 |
> me like the risk of problems is low, and if we just keep a backup of |
| 24 |
> the cvs repository if there is ever a concern about who made some |
| 25 |
> commit 5 years ago we can always dig it up. |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> It really seems to me like little remains to be done here. Mostly we |
| 28 |
> just need somebody to push a decision on things like workflow. A few |
| 29 |
> of the bugs have comments like "no sense working on this with other |
| 30 |
> stuff still needed" - which seems to be outdated thinking with so |
| 31 |
> little left to do. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Am I missing some big concern that just isn't obvious in these bugs? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> I also fear that we're refusing to take action on a great solution |
| 36 |
> because it isn't a perfect solution. Nobody in the world is using |
| 37 |
> tree-signing with git, and we aren't really using it in cvs either. |
| 38 |
> We now have the ability to do it with git, but depending on workflow |
| 39 |
> 3rd-party signatures might not end up in the history of head, or we |
| 40 |
> might not be able to verify them in an automated fashion. Honestly, I |
| 41 |
> think the appropriate response here is whoop-de-doo. We can't do any |
| 42 |
> of that stuff with cvs, but moving to git would have a lot of other |
| 43 |
> benefits. We can always change our processes later once somebody has |
| 44 |
> a solution for the signing problem. Right now we're making do without |
| 45 |
> it on cvs, and so is every other project using git. We can also |
| 46 |
> continue to sign manifests as a workaround, which is what we'll be |
| 47 |
> doing anyway if we never migrate to git. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> The git migration just strikes me as one of those cases where anybody |
| 50 |
> is free to come up with a reason not to use something, but nobody has |
| 51 |
> to defend keeping the status quo. I think the question isn't whether |
| 52 |
> there is anything wrong with using git, but whether the problems with |
| 53 |
> git are worse than the problems we already have. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Rich |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> [1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
> [/End quote] |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> Hope that helps. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
This was on -dev a while ago. Was there nothing additional? |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
Diego had a fair point about having to checkout a crapton of git |
| 66 |
history. I think that could be significantly improved with a seed |
| 67 |
tarball on a torrent, particularly if the seed tarball is updated |
| 68 |
annually (or biannually). |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
I'll poke at that bug report and see what's there tomorrow evening (or |
| 71 |
Wednesday; my Tuesdays are usually booked solid.) .... in the mean |
| 72 |
time, I'm off to bed. |
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
-- |
| 75 |
:wq |
Archives