List Archive: gentoo-scm
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Saturday 11 April 2009, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> Let's look at tree - one thing can be said about each package - it
> belongs to some herd or (doesn't, and it's with status maintainer
> wanted or maintained by individual developers).
> So creating separate repository for each herd is the most obvious
> (and naive) idea.
> Pros are the following:
> - project members taking care of some herd (or belonging to herd?)
> receive (and have access) (only) to repository they are interested
> in, resulting in smaller pulls/pushes
> - some level of isolation - gives possibility to restrict access (for
> example: "only toolchain and arch teams allowed here")
> - some testing overlays could now just track their tree counterparts
> - merging stuff from testing to tree could be semi-automatic and
> trivial - alternative projects - like hardened - can just have
> separate branches when appropriate - for easy merges with "main tree"
Why would hardened have an easier job branching off multiple single
repos than one large repository?
> - profile can be (should be actually) separated in another repository
> and developed easier
The whole modle of profiles (and keywords, for that matter) is worked
out so we do not need branches. We keep ebuilds in one tree and define
visibility for the "branches" (from a user's PoV). Do you really think
actually branching off makes it easier for anyone? Who would push
changes to the 50.. something profiles? Does ~sh get more usable if
maintainers don't push trivial updates to that branch anymore?
> Some cons:
> - projects are now more dependant on other projects and its
> responsiveness, unless access is granted to all repositories for
> every developer - needs some basic tools to 'glue' final repository
> and ready it for rsync - possibly needs better multiple repositories
> support in Portage (not sure though)
> - profile no longer there
> - to fully benefit from git - robbat2 would need to propose his slim
> manifest format as GLEP (or in case of lack of time - quite possible
> - get someone else to do it) and get it implemented by someone.
> - probably not easy way to migrate from monolithic gentoo-x86 to
> split sub- repositories retaining complete history
> - not settled yet what to do with orphaned/proxy maintained packages
> and herd- switching
We have been over the "splitting" by category/feature/herd part before
and had not reached a consensus.
Personally, I do not see overall tree QA improving.
Long before I joined Gentoo a decision was made deliberately to give
write access for each directory to each developer. And it allows me to
responsibly fix bugs that others cannot currently handle, and I can
tell others to commit fixes to the ebuilds that carry my name in
metadata.xml. It also allows for easy tree migration efforts (big
renames, or the recent use dependency changes), keywordings and it
allows the security team to mess around with other people's kittens if
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)