Re: [gentoo-dev] Naming of repositories: gento-x86 edition, bike shedding wanted

[Michał Górny]

Dnia 2015-03-14, o godz. 22:25:56
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> napisał(a):

> This is a mostly inconsequential issue, but the Git migration provides
> us a chance to make a clean break...
>
> The repository of our ebuilds and the name of the CVS module have been
> called gentoo-x86 since the start of Gentoo, because it originally was
> only for x86. Here's the very first ebuild added to CVS [1], Portage
> v1.1 is also early on [2].
>
> On the rsync side, it was originally called gentoo-x86-portage, and then
> between the 1.2 and 1.4 release (early 2003), the stages switched to
> using the name 'gentoo-portage'; as recently as 2010, various mirrors
> were STILL fetching from the name of gentoo-x86-portage, when we
> reminded them that they should have switched years ago.
>
> All of these names have caused some confusion. Trying to explain to a
> new user that the Portage tree refers to the collection of ebuilds used
> by a PMS-compliant package manager (eg Portage) is problematic.
>
> To that end, I'd like us to brainstorm names for the new
> bikeshed^R^R^R^R^R^R^R^R
> repository, to go live at the time of the Git migration.
>
> It will be the single tree that contains what you find today in the
> gentoo-x86 CVS module; and on rsync as gentoo-x86-portage and
> gentoo-portage.
>
> Ideally, it should be something that works as a relatively unique
> identifier (Portage is bad as it refers to both the package manager and
> the tree), and fits easily into discussions, both in-person and online.
>
> Questions:
> 0. What names for the tree/repository.
> 1. We have some namespaces in Git: proj, dev, priv, data, sites, exp; should
>    the tree be in one of those namespaces, a new namespace, or be without
>    a namespace? git://anongit.gentoo.org/NEW-NAME.git.

The name simply must be 'gentoo'. If you think it's easy to change
repo_name, think again. That name is hardcoded in a lot of random
places (like Portage configuration, databases), and it is used by some
external tools as a replacement of deprecated PORTDIR. Not to mention
all overlays.

Instead of trying to emphasize it's the main repository, we ought to
drop the notion of 'main repository'. That was the goal of all changes
in Portage, so stop trying to regress for the sake of good ol' times.

As for the namespace, proj/ makes most sense of the current namespaces.
If we want a separate repo/ namespace, we would probably need to
consider moving other repositories there -- at least the official ones.
Of course, it would be a nice result, having everything hosted
on git.g.o as git.g.o/repo/${repo_name}.git.
-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny