| 1 |
On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:39:43AM +0000, Mike Auty wrote: |
| 2 |
> > 1. Decide whether the existing tree layout is suitable for and best in a |
| 3 |
> > git world. If not, what is? I have done some thinking about this at |
| 4 |
> > <http://dev.gentoo.org/~dberkholz/git/git_conversion.txt>. |
| 5 |
> This seems to be the same place we were back in November last year. Is |
| 6 |
> this something we should ask the council about, or continue discussing here? |
| 7 |
Discussion on the SCM list. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Main delay is that I've been doing the planning, packing and renovations |
| 10 |
needed for moving house (my move out date from the old place is Jan |
| 11 |
31st, my renovations of the new place are very close to complete). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Secondary delay is that I asked for some input on hardware and tuning re |
| 14 |
managing a very large repo, and still haven't got a response from my |
| 15 |
contact (at kernel.org). Regardless of the tuning, we're going to need |
| 16 |
to figure out a box with lots of RAM for the repo size. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> There seem to be two front runners, 1 repo/package and 1 repo/tree. The |
| 19 |
> pros and cons are as set out in your file (the flat tree option pros |
| 20 |
> don't seem to outweigh the cons, so I haven't really considered that). |
| 21 |
1 repo/tree is the only one that will fly, see past discussion on the |
| 22 |
list. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> For the 1 repo/tree, I had envisaged using git as the transport for all |
| 25 |
> trees, and rsync being ditched. Unfortunately I'm not sure that'll be |
| 26 |
> feasible, since we've now seen the size of a full tree with complete |
| 27 |
> history (1Gb vs 100Mb), and the history's mostly irrelevant for the |
| 28 |
> average user. Having the option to do either is nice (much like using |
| 29 |
> CVS for the primary tree), but I don't think it'll ever be the default. |
| 30 |
> As such from a user perspective, everything stays much the same (the |
| 31 |
> rsync mirrors can merge the stable/unstable git trees if we go that way, |
| 32 |
> although there'll be some manifest jiggery-pokery that might affect |
| 33 |
> signing, so this'd need further thought) and the only bit that'll really |
| 34 |
> change is that perhaps the Changelogs are finally autogenerated rather |
| 35 |
> than being added by the developer. |
| 36 |
Optional. I see rsync still existing long term, but reflecting more of |
| 37 |
the stable side. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
Robin Hugh Johnson |
| 41 |
Gentoo Linux Developer & Infra Guy |
| 42 |
E-Mail : robbat2@g.o |
| 43 |
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85 |
Archives