| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600 |
| 4 |
"Trenton Adams" <trenton.d.adams@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the |
| 7 |
> arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and |
| 8 |
> someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up |
| 9 |
> with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them |
| 10 |
> down, but hey, it's worth a try. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
#1: |
| 13 |
You're aware that there's a CVS for portage, aren't you? I'm still not |
| 14 |
quite sure if you are suggesting using SVN for the portage mirrors and |
| 15 |
if you are suggesting that users also have a full SVN history on the |
| 16 |
clients, too? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> PROBLEM 1 |
| 19 |
> [...] |
| 20 |
> PROBLEM 2 |
| 21 |
> [...] |
| 22 |
> PROBLEM 3 |
| 23 |
> [...] |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Well, are those really problems at all? I mean, isn't it easy to |
| 26 |
overcome them? Is it worth dedicating time and work into that svn thing? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> POTENTIAL ISSUES |
| 29 |
> Now, I'm not entirely sure of the performance implications of |
| 30 |
> subversion for this purpose. So, that would definitely have to either |
| 31 |
> be tested, or someone would have to talk with the subversion folks to |
| 32 |
> know if it would be a problem for thousands of users to access |
| 33 |
> subversion in readonly mode. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Well, of course! There's definately a reason to use rsync. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> It would certainly be annoying for a |
| 38 |
> developer to go "svn commit", and have to wait for half an hour |
| 39 |
> because everyone else is updating their local copies. But, that could |
| 40 |
> be solved by mirrors only getting updated once every day, at 12 |
| 41 |
> midnight. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
Oh, yeah. Your midnight, my midnight? It would definately be annoying |
| 44 |
to make a small glitch and have to wait >24hrs until the fix for that |
| 45 |
gets promoted. The "problem" you mentioned that at some points there |
| 46 |
are slightly errorneous ebuilds in portage or minor inconsistencies can |
| 47 |
only be fixed by promoting updates fast. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
The solution you propose costs a lot of CPU power, even more storage on |
| 50 |
the mirrors and lacks some positive aspects that the current solution |
| 51 |
has. Take a look at e.g. the major BSDs ports and package systems. They |
| 52 |
certainly have similar problems. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
OK, looking at the BSDs, I like the feature that there are branches |
| 55 |
with the aim to build a package tree that is as consistent as possible. |
| 56 |
That would be a plus. But that would imply a lot of work and a change |
| 57 |
in ebuild maintainance. I don't see this coming soon for Gentoo. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
-hwh |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives