Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Alec Warner <antarus@g.o>
To: Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:04:42
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS by Robert Buchholz
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o> > wrote: >> > i am not opposed to the idea of layout changes; its just not my >> > personal itch (right now). and quite frankly - i dont see anybody >> > else here, whose itch it is... >> >> It is mine ;) >> >> > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our repo >> > layout is not! >> >> I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I >> think is better). > > What problems are we trying to solve?
1) People commiting things into a shared space that are not widely utilized. 2) People commiting personal ebuilds into a shared space because it is easier to use (syncs by default; no overlays). 2 is a specific subset of 1; but 2 really pisses me off (moreso because I have done it and felt shitty afterward). 3) People commiting things into a shared space that they have no real intention of maintaining.
> Why is the exherbo approach better?
Mostly they are good at telling people to fuck off. I like that. I think a tree with 13000 packages in it is less useful when only a small percentage are maintained well. If you want poorly maintained ebuilds you can look to the community for that often enough.
> > More specific questions: > * How fine-grained do you want the repositories to be?
I expect this to evolve over time.
> * Who controls access?
In one proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be a combination of a number of smaller repositories. Anything in gentoo-x86 would be 'officially supported.' Running QA tests on the smaller repositories presents a problem as well as cross-repo dependencies (most developers would need the repositories for their deps installed. I cannot say that this is a very good approach but it avoids the whole 'portage doesn't have repository support' argument. In another proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be one of many repositories and the package manager would provide management capability. Repositories provided by default by gentoo would be 'officially supported' in this scheme.
> * How is QA being done?
repoman? gentoo-commits? I would imagine similar to now.
> * Who defines what is "officially supported" > (right now it is "in the tree, not p.masked")
See the above.
> * What about global data (the non-cache files in metadata, eclasses)?
In the former scheme it would need to be shared across all repos that are being integrated into gentoo-x86 (possibly its own repo for profiles/). In the other scheme each repo would be on its own (mucho duplication).
> > Robert >