On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o>
> wrote:
>> > i am not opposed to the idea of layout changes; its just not my
>> > personal itch (right now). and quite frankly - i dont see anybody
>> > else here, whose itch it is...
>>
>> It is mine ;)
>>
>> > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our repo
>> > layout is not!
>>
>> I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I
>> think is better).
>
> What problems are we trying to solve?

1) People commiting things into a shared space that are not widely utilized.
2) People commiting personal ebuilds into a shared space because it is
easier to use (syncs by default; no overlays).  2 is a specific subset
of 1; but 2 really pisses me off (moreso because I have done it and
felt shitty afterward).
3) People commiting things into a shared space that they have no real
intention of maintaining.

> Why is the exherbo approach better?

Mostly they are good at telling people to fuck off.  I like that.
I think a tree with 13000 packages in it is less useful when only a
small percentage are maintained well.

If you want poorly maintained ebuilds you can look to the community
for that often enough.

>
> More specific questions:
> * How fine-grained do you want the repositories to be?

I expect this to evolve over time.

> * Who controls access?

In one proposal; Gentoo.  Gentoo-x86 would be a combination of a
number of smaller repositories.  Anything in gentoo-x86 would be
'officially supported.'  Running QA tests on the smaller repositories
presents a problem as well as cross-repo dependencies (most developers
would need the repositories for their deps installed.  I cannot say
that this is a very good approach but it avoids the whole 'portage
doesn't have repository support' argument.

In another proposal; Gentoo.  Gentoo-x86 would be one of many
repositories and the package manager would provide management
capability.  Repositories provided by default by gentoo would be
'officially supported' in this scheme.

> * How is QA being done?

repoman?  gentoo-commits?  I would imagine similar to now.

> * Who defines what is "officially supported"
>  (right now it is "in the tree, not p.masked")

See the above.

> * What about global data (the non-cache files in metadata, eclasses)?

In the former scheme it would need to be shared across all repos that
are being integrated into gentoo-x86 (possibly its own repo for
profiles/).

In the other scheme each repo would be on its own (mucho duplication).

>
> Robert
>