1 |
Michael Mol wrote: |
2 |
> So, I joined this list a few hours ago. If Rich reposted any of the |
3 |
> discussion over here, it must have been before I joined the list. |
4 |
> Could I request a repost? (I presume the archives are still down, or I |
5 |
> would have been updated when that bug got resolved...) |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
He posted this a bit ago: |
9 |
[start quote] |
10 |
|
11 |
Re-posting for discussion on gentoo-scm (apologies if this is a dupe, |
12 |
but I'm pretty sure I wasn't subscribed for the last attempt): |
13 |
|
14 |
Looking at the tracker [1], we need a pre-upload hook (I'm not quite |
15 |
sure why), an rsync conversion script, the ability to validate the |
16 |
converted tree, and documentation. There is still an open bug for |
17 |
commit signing, and I'm not quite sure why as this was implemented. |
18 |
|
19 |
It seems like a lot has already been done with validation. Checking |
20 |
the active tree is pretty trivial - just compare the trees and they |
21 |
should be the same. I guess we need to check history, but it seems to |
22 |
me like the risk of problems is low, and if we just keep a backup of |
23 |
the cvs repository if there is ever a concern about who made some |
24 |
commit 5 years ago we can always dig it up. |
25 |
|
26 |
It really seems to me like little remains to be done here. Mostly we |
27 |
just need somebody to push a decision on things like workflow. A few |
28 |
of the bugs have comments like "no sense working on this with other |
29 |
stuff still needed" - which seems to be outdated thinking with so |
30 |
little left to do. |
31 |
|
32 |
Am I missing some big concern that just isn't obvious in these bugs? |
33 |
|
34 |
I also fear that we're refusing to take action on a great solution |
35 |
because it isn't a perfect solution. Nobody in the world is using |
36 |
tree-signing with git, and we aren't really using it in cvs either. |
37 |
We now have the ability to do it with git, but depending on workflow |
38 |
3rd-party signatures might not end up in the history of head, or we |
39 |
might not be able to verify them in an automated fashion. Honestly, I |
40 |
think the appropriate response here is whoop-de-doo. We can't do any |
41 |
of that stuff with cvs, but moving to git would have a lot of other |
42 |
benefits. We can always change our processes later once somebody has |
43 |
a solution for the signing problem. Right now we're making do without |
44 |
it on cvs, and so is every other project using git. We can also |
45 |
continue to sign manifests as a workaround, which is what we'll be |
46 |
doing anyway if we never migrate to git. |
47 |
|
48 |
The git migration just strikes me as one of those cases where anybody |
49 |
is free to come up with a reason not to use something, but nobody has |
50 |
to defend keeping the status quo. I think the question isn't whether |
51 |
there is anything wrong with using git, but whether the problems with |
52 |
git are worse than the problems we already have. |
53 |
|
54 |
Rich |
55 |
|
56 |
[1] - https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=333531 |
57 |
|
58 |
[/End quote] |
59 |
|
60 |
Hope that helps. |
61 |
|
62 |
Dale |
63 |
|
64 |
:-) :-) |
65 |
|
66 |
-- |
67 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |