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 Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Robert Buchholz <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> > 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
In the other scheme each repo would be on its own (mucho duplication).