Gentoo Archives: gentoo-doc

From: Joshua Saddler <nightmorph@g.o>
To: gentoo-doc@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-doc] Documentation/website in git?
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 23:25:48
Message-Id: 20101012162432.5b9f9e3f@angelstorm
In Reply to: [gentoo-doc] Documentation/website in git? by Peter Volkov
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 20:46:52 +0400
Peter Volkov <pva@g.o> wrote:
> Hi, guys. While there is some job required to move portage tree > into git it looks like moving documentation and web-site could be > done much easier. Are there any plans to move on git? Was anything > done in this direction? This will simplify translator's job as we > are planning to use git that makes commits faster and allows us to > ease workflow.
I've been talking to Robin (robbat2) off and on about moving to git for more than a year now. From what he tells me, it's a simple thing to switch our website and docs over to git, on the infrastructure side at least. There aren't too many changes to make to the docs scripts that gorg runs, and there's no difference in server load or required storage. However, we would need to completely rethink our workflow. I jotted down some notes many months ago; I still have some of 'em: - Bugzilla changes for drafts and patches? How much would still be posted there when we could just have people send pull requests to their git clones of our master? - What about branching? Needed for what we do? What about the handbooks? (We used to always do something like that for the networkless handbooks, which is partly why we no longer keep versioned handbooks around.) - Reverting commits should be simpler. CVS sucks for reverting mistakes. - Internal doc formatting: should we abandon the <version> scheme, since we can just use git commit hashes? It would reduce the manual bumping we do (and forget to do). How would that work with git history? - Speaking of history: we'd need a way to carry over CVS history to Git history; we absolutely CANNOT lose the merge/update history, or all the docs that are in and out of the CVS "attic." Often enough we get bugs asking for additions or changes, but it's been settled and explained in previous commits and CVS logs. - Cloning and initial checkouts could be quite nice for translators and English devs alike; merging branches and managing contributors would be much more flexible and fine-grained. We could host all clones on gentoo's git, or even if we continue to have multiple separate repos, git makes it easy to pull and merge those changes regardless of location. - What else would translators need? Git access will ultimately require "gitolite" to be ready. Gitolite is a perl-based replacement for gitosis-gentoo, which serves up all our git trees ATM. I wouldn't mind moving to git, but I already have some limited experience using it for a year or so. Not all of our contributors are familiar with it, and even I need to learn more about how git works, since it's so different from CVS. I imagine we might have some holdouts who don't want to move from CVS at all, so now's the time to speak up. What does the rest of the GDP think about moving to git?


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-doc] Documentation/website in git? "Jan Kundrát" <jkt@g.o>