Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>
To: Gentoo Development <gentoo-dev@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:10:42
Message-Id: CAKmKYaBKbPLhEa7v=W7b1io5e7vt-kVxzLVDawgvWMRCBME2ng@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation? by Maxim Kammerer
1 On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Maxim Kammerer <mk@×××.su> wrote:
2 > The problem is that the directory was apparently included into daily
3 > snapshot between 00:31:07 UTC (ebuild commit) and 00:31:13 UTC
4 > (Manifest commit). For those that don't remember, CVS does not have
5 > atomic commits, so it's not possible to instead use something like svn
6 > export / git archive.
7
8 Note that this problem is compounded by Manifest signing: because
9 ebuilds are committed before the Manifest is signed, there is a
10 potentially long gap between the commit of the ebuilds and the commit
11 of the Manifest. I ran into this yesterday, when I forgot about the
12 password dialog sitting in some terminal I wasn't looking at for about
13 half an hour, and at some point someone in IRC noticed that the
14 Manifest was out of date. I'm not sure how common it is for people to
15 interactively enter their password on each commit like me.
16
17 In any case, we probably shouldn't spend a whole lot of effort on this
18 given the somewhat-impending git migration, which neatly solves this
19 problem. Maybe there's some low-hanging fruit in the commit ordering,
20 though? I was thinking it might be possible to have the Manifest
21 signed before committing the ebuilds, but it's entirely likely that
22 CVS keywords get in the way of that...
23
24 Cheers,
25
26 Dirkjan

Replies