Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] council meeting agenda, mar 12
Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:53:44
Message-Id: 20170313065326.GA31816@sporkbox
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] council meeting agenda, mar 12 by Rich Freeman
On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 09:33:35AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 12, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Daniel Campbell <zlg@g.o> wrote: > > > > If there's already an easy way to find council decisions like this, pardon > > my ignorance. > > Council decisions are generally made in meetings, and posted in the > summaries at: > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Council/Meeting_logs > > For whatever reason this decision was pushed a bit and is in a bug: > https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=611234 > > Speaking personally I didn't mind voting this way since it was mostly > just a re-iteration of the previous decision, and it had been hashed > out on the lists. > > I believe it is on the agenda for today mainly to get it into the > summary so that it isn't lost in bugzilla. I don't really expect much > further discussion. > > The decision was: > > The council confirms its earlier decision (2014-10-14 meeting) to drop > CVS headers after migration to Git. > > 1) Any $Id$ and $Header$ lines are to be removed from ebuilds and > eclasses in the gentoo repository, as well as from other files, e.g., > metadata, profiles, and files (except patches) in FILESDIR. > > 2) Removal should be done at once, and a repoman check should be > implemented to prevent such lines from accidentally being inserted > again. > > 3) Infra is asked not to expand any $Id$ or other keywords, neither at > rsync generation time, nor via git attributes in the development > repository." > > -- > Rich >
Thanks for taking the time to point readers in the right direction. I did as mgorny told me last night. I found a single bug and a commented out portion of code in the repoman branch of portage.git. It took some digging to learn what you covered above. The git migration happened quite a while ago, so it'll be nice to see ebuilds with a little less boilerplate. What pushed the decision back so far it was reconfirmed? Assuming the tooling already exists to replace the functionality that was intended [1], it seems like we're due to get this behind us. :) To confirm: going forward, maintainers don't need to edit their old ebuilds, but repoman will yell at you if any *new* files get added and have $Id$. Do I have that right? Thanks again for being constructive. [1] I believe git can do that with some hook magic

Attachments

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