Hi, Here's the log from #gnome-debian between sjoerd and me, discussing the need for a tags/ dir and the layout+locatin of such tags. (CIA commit messages trimmed.)
10:31 < sjoerd> Oh, with the imminent release of G2.18, are there still people interested in provided a G2.16 backport for etch ? (and if so shouldn't we branch of the current packaging now mostly?) 10:31 <@lool> Great 10:32 <@lool> sjoerd: I don't think it's reasonable to start backporting 2.16 at this point 10:32 <@lool> Interestingly, in a distant past, there were branches per GNOME branch in our pkg-gnome SVN 10:33 < sjoerd> lool: I'm just saying if people might want to do it after etch, _then_ we should probably branch/tag most stuff now before starting real 2.18 packaging :) 10:34 < sjoerd> otoh by the time etc is released people would probably be more interested in a 2.18 backport anyways.. 10:35 <@lool> sjoerd: You think someone would prefer backporting 2.16 over 2.18? 10:35 <@lool> Beside, actual backports will only start in some weeks, if not months 10:36 < sjoerd> Depends on how long it takes before we've got 2.18 in exp :) 10:36 < seb128> and Depends the requirements difference 10:36 < sjoerd> nod 10:37 <@lool> Well, our SVN really isn't meant to keep GNOME branches right now 10:37 < sjoerd> Basically we should think about tagging 2.16 stuff before proceding with 2.18 stuff.. It's no real extra work (just running an svn command) and might be valuable for some people imho 10:37 <@lool> If you ask me, GNOME branches make perfect sense 10:38 -!- Dodji is now known as Dodj|busy 10:39 < sjoerd> Well, in the past they weren't really necessary but as we're about to have three gnome releases packaged at the same time... 10:40 <@lool> Ok, but I will need help restructuring the SVN to match GNOME branches again, and also support 10:41 <@lool> Would people reading this be so kind to followup to my message on [EMAIL PROTECTED] to mention a 2.16 branch, and perhaps comment on the various layouts? 10:42 <@lool> I'd like to have some voices acking the change in layout or discussing other solutions / layouts 10:42 < sjoerd> the exp/<stable release's>/unstable/trunk thing looks fine to me.. Just need to get used to working with it i guess 10:43 < sjoerd> Especially with how to cherry-pick single patches from trunk to whatever.. 10:43 * sjoerd sends a mail 10:43 <@lool> sjoerd: where do you put G2.16 packages in the above? 10:44 < sjoerd> probably just in a tags/ subdir 10:45 <@lool> sjoerd: Hmm that's nice; and then a new etch-backports or whatever when needed 10:45 <@lool> sjoerd: Ok, so no branch, but tags for G2.16 for now, that's fine by me 10:45 < sjoerd> Well, tags/branches are the same thing in svn afaik :) 10:46 < sjoerd> the other option would be just in the top-level, so exp, sarge, trunk, G2.16, exp etc 10:46 <@lool> sjoerd: At the SVN level yes, but I do see how I'm going to tag each individual package, and how a branch could be created for backports afterwards 10:48 < sjoerd> Right, well, that's mostly semantic sugar though :) 10:48 <@lool> merkel% dak ls sound-juicer 10:48 <@lool> merkel% 10:48 <@lool> Grr 10:48 < sjoerd> But if it makes it easier for people to think about it, then i'm all for it :) 10:50 <@lool> sjoerd: To be clearer, what you propose is to make a "svn cp" of the current 2.16 stuff in a placeholder, and resurrect it when a backport is being prepared; the problem I had was that I didn't want to see gnome-2.x branches mixed with unstable/exp/trunk, but now I see that we wont have a gnome-2.x branch but an etch-backport branch later on 10:51 <@lool> sjoerd: So, the fact that you mentionned a tag made me realize that we do not need to open a branch "2.16" right now, we will have a "backports" branch which makes more sense with the other branch names and it will only open when needed, with whatever version 10:51 <@lool> sjoerd: Or to put it even more clearly: your words enlight me! :) 10:51 * lool has been touched by the sjoerd 10:51 < sjoerd> right, fair enough.. tagging it as a tag will indeed make it clearer for people what the intension is :) 10:59 < sjoerd> Hrm, we should really make a nice document about this stuff btw -> really need to make the pkg-gnome website nicer 11:00 * sjoerd still in favour of copying the pkg-telepathy/pkg-ruby-extras webgen stuff :) 11:11 -!- sonne [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined #gnome-debian 11:26 -!- dholbach_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] has joined #gnome-debian 11:26 -!- dholbach_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] 11:35 -!- dholbach [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit [Ping timeout: 600 seconds] 11:36 <@lool> seb128: You need to bump vte shlibs higher 11:37 < seb128> lool: k, thank you 11:46 -!- Beowulf [EMAIL PROTECTED] has quit [Ping timeout: 600 seconds] 11:47 <@lool> sjoerd: Hmm, you think we should hash the tags/ dir with a G2.16 subdir? 11:47 <@lool> sjoerd: Shouldn't we simply tag all uploads and let people preparing a backport cherry pick what they like 11:48 <@lool> sjoerd: Do you think the tags/ should be top-level or per package-type dir? (especially given that some packages get promoted to official status or get deprecated) 11:48 <@lool> (thanks for commenting!) 11:48 < sjoerd> np :) 11:49 < sjoerd> I wouldn't be against tagging everything.. Although people tend to forget it, but that's true for hashing it 2.16 too ofcourse 11:50 < sjoerd> you mean tags/official tags/extras etc ? 11:50 < sjoerd> Dunno, that's a hard one 11:50 <@lool> sjoerd: Actually, I thought we could have a top-level tags/$source/$version 11:50 <@lool> It also makes it easier not to checkout it 11:50 < sjoerd> I'd guess that per package type makes sense, as at the time it was tagged it had a certain tatus 11:50 <@lool> s/not to checkout it/to not checkout it 11:50 < sjoerd> $source being ? the source package 11:51 <@lool> yes 11:51 < sjoerd> right, so the choice is between that and tags/$package_type/$source/$version right ? 11:52 <@lool> a) pkg-gnome/tags/$source/$version b) pkg-gnome/$type/tags/$source c) pkg-gnome/tags/$package_type/$source/$version 11:53 <@lool> (All versions proposed so far) 11:53 <@lool> I prefer a), and I prefer anything top-level; it's less complex 11:54 < sjoerd> i'd say either a or b, don't have strong opinion any way 11:55 <@lool> Ok, I really prefer a), I think it will be simpler 11:55 < sjoerd> k 11:55 <@lool> sjoerd: May I send the above log to dgg? 11:55 < sjoerd> sure -- Loïc Minier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
