1 |
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, William Hubbs wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> the Gentoo council will meet again on March 12 at 19:00 utc in the |
5 |
>> #gentoo-council channel on freenode. |
6 |
>> Please respond to this message with any items you would like us to |
7 |
>> add to the agenda to vote on or discuss. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> In the 2014-10-14 meeting, there was the following decision under the |
10 |
> "Git Migration Issues" topic: |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Can we drop CVS headers post-migration? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge, |
15 |
> radhermit, rich0, williamh |
16 |
> |
17 |
> This was again briefly discussed in the 2016-04-10 meeting (following |
18 |
> a discussion in the gentoo-dev mailing list) and in the 2016-11-13 |
19 |
> meeting (with respect to a repoman check for the ebuild header). |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Since there appear to be doubts how to interpret above mentioned |
22 |
> decision, I would like to ask the Council to clarify the following |
23 |
> points: |
24 |
> |
25 |
> a) Are $Id$ and $Header$ lines to be removed in the gentoo repository? |
26 |
> |
27 |
> b) Does this only apply to ebuilds and eclasses, or also to other |
28 |
> files in the tree, e.g., metadata, profiles, and files in FILESDIR |
29 |
> other than patches (like init scripts)? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> c) Should these lines be removed in one go, or should we enable a |
32 |
> repoman check and have them fade out over time? |
33 |
> |
34 |
> d) Should git expansion of $Id$ be enabled (i.e., ident in git |
35 |
> attributes)? |
36 |
|
37 |
If $Id$ is to be kept, I think point "d" needs further clarification: |
38 |
in what contexts should ident expansion be enabled? |
39 |
|
40 |
At rsync generation time? |
41 |
|
42 |
In the development repo? (via .gitattributes). |
43 |
|
44 |
Enabling expansion in some places but not others may cause some issues |
45 |
that would necessitate further work to prevent "$Id: xxxxxxx $" |
46 |
strings from being committed in the development repo accidentally. |
47 |
This might mean a repoman check and/or a git hook. |
48 |
|
49 |
I would highly suggest the council familiarize themselves with the git |
50 |
ident attribute from the gitattributes man page before making any |
51 |
decision here. |