Re: git tools for building in base?
Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > I don't fully recall, but I think that the hg conversion was slow and > the disk space needed was quite a bit more than git. > One of Mercurial's biggest design principles is immutable history (with history rewriting disabled by default), so increased disk space compared to git is reasonable. > So in summary, I guess it can be summed up as: > - there was no svn-all-fast-export for hg back then > - even bitbucket switched from hg to git Bitbucket dropping Mercurial support was more a business decision, although more ancillary tooling for git existing and developer appetite certainly played factors there. > - history rewriting is easier in git, see e.g. this file for the stuff > that's required to make the cvs2svn things a bit nicer: > https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/blob/master/fix_bogus_tags.sh > > Granted, now that the heavy lifting is done, one could probably do a > git2hg transition, as the history is now pretty sane and should be > compatible to the hg model. > Mercurial's branches are more similar to subversion than git. The hg analogue to git's branches are bookmarks, for which even they are optional since hg has its heads concept. > But lack of anyone (to my knowledge?) providing a hg copy of FreeBSD all > these years tells me that there's simply no demand for it. > I use hg-beta for ports. Also used it for src up until git-beta came online. Not sure what I will do once ports is converted to git, however. My mercurial use stems from two sources: committers' need to preserve copy/move history (though this will probably go away with git) and horrendous performance with the ports tree in git. Horrendous as in, for example, takes about five minutes just to run git-status(1) on a ports tree stored on a hard drive with UFS (-uno doesn't help) whilst locking up the entire system I/O for the duration. The I/O lockups have since subsided but as of six months ago the slow enumeration has persisted. For some reason, mercurial is far more efficient in this regard. -- Charlie Li …nope, still don't have an exit line. (This email address is for mailing list use; replace local-part with vishwin for off-list communication if possible) OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: git tools for building in base?
On 23/12/2020 13:54, Ulrich Spörlein wrote: On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 14:02:08 +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to hg (Mercurial). Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am just curious what leads to these decisions. No documents, but git was simply more mature back when I started this effort a decade ago and it is and was more popular (with all the added side effects that has). I was (and am) only an occasional user of hg and even git, so familiarity wasn't quite an argument back then, though the git storage model is much nicer for the required history re-writing. In the early days I pushed to googlecode and bitbucket as well, you can see that here https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/uqs/git_conv/git_conv?r1=251786&r2=251785&pathrev=251786 Not visible are the trials I ran with git-svn and hg, both of which only could handle the single head branch, but not all the other branching craziness that was and is going on in the repo. I don't fully recall, but I think that the hg conversion was slow and the disk space needed was quite a bit more than git. So in summary, I guess it can be summed up as: - there was no svn-all-fast-export for hg back then - even bitbucket switched from hg to git - history rewriting is easier in git, see e.g. this file for the stuff that's required to make the cvs2svn things a bit nicer: https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/blob/master/fix_bogus_tags.sh Granted, now that the heavy lifting is done, one could probably do a git2hg transition, as the history is now pretty sane and should be compatible to the hg model. But lack of anyone (to my knowledge?) providing a hg copy of FreeBSD all these years tells me that there's simply no demand for it. There's https://wiki.freebsd.org/LocalMercurial from 2008 but that skips converting from r1. Of interest is also https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2019-May/051240.html which looks like the size issues with hg haven't been fixed yet. It also seems that http://hg-beta.freebsd.org/base/branches has the user-servicable branches only, but not vendor. So it's not usable as a source-of-truth for the project. I would encourage everyone *not* to base their hg work off of SVN but take the soon-official git repo instead. If you wanted to do this right off of SVN, here's just one of dozens of quirks: https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/blob/master/revisions.md You've been warned ;] Thank you so much. This is very valuable post. I didn't expect such detailed information. As I am using hg for my local projects and git for public / $WORK maybe one day I will try to setup hg repo from official git repo - just for "the fun". I am completely fine with svn, or git or anything else was / is / will be the official source even if there is no tool in base. Installing package is so simple in these days. Thank you again! Kind regards Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Fri, 2020-12-18 at 14:02:08 +0100, Miroslav Lachman wrote: On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to hg (Mercurial). Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am just curious what leads to these decisions. No documents, but git was simply more mature back when I started this effort a decade ago and it is and was more popular (with all the added side effects that has). I was (and am) only an occasional user of hg and even git, so familiarity wasn't quite an argument back then, though the git storage model is much nicer for the required history re-writing. In the early days I pushed to googlecode and bitbucket as well, you can see that here https://svnweb.freebsd.org/base/user/uqs/git_conv/git_conv?r1=251786&r2=251785&pathrev=251786 Not visible are the trials I ran with git-svn and hg, both of which only could handle the single head branch, but not all the other branching craziness that was and is going on in the repo. I don't fully recall, but I think that the hg conversion was slow and the disk space needed was quite a bit more than git. So in summary, I guess it can be summed up as: - there was no svn-all-fast-export for hg back then - even bitbucket switched from hg to git - history rewriting is easier in git, see e.g. this file for the stuff that's required to make the cvs2svn things a bit nicer: https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/blob/master/fix_bogus_tags.sh Granted, now that the heavy lifting is done, one could probably do a git2hg transition, as the history is now pretty sane and should be compatible to the hg model. But lack of anyone (to my knowledge?) providing a hg copy of FreeBSD all these years tells me that there's simply no demand for it. There's https://wiki.freebsd.org/LocalMercurial from 2008 but that skips converting from r1. Of interest is also https://www.mercurial-scm.org/pipermail/mercurial/2019-May/051240.html which looks like the size issues with hg haven't been fixed yet. It also seems that http://hg-beta.freebsd.org/base/branches has the user-servicable branches only, but not vendor. So it's not usable as a source-of-truth for the project. I would encourage everyone *not* to base their hg work off of SVN but take the soon-official git repo instead. If you wanted to do this right off of SVN, here's just one of dozens of quirks: https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/blob/master/revisions.md You've been warned ;] Cheers Uli ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
> Yes. I was answering the first question asked about FreeBSD and git... > The clincher for me was that git is better supported by third party tools > and has gotten quite good at 'recovery from oops' which mercurial is still > lacking in both areas. I too have used both, and I had to re clone my hg > tree several times, but so far have never screwed up a git repo so bad I > had to reclone... The history rewriting of git is more integrated and more > polished than the equivalent in hg, as are the rebase workflows which > really help have a cleaner history... > Warner (Losh) I have messed up a git repo and had to reclone, but can't compare to mercurial because I have not yet used mercurial. Maybe I was inept with git. I notice many more open-source projects use git than mercurial, maybe because of the reasons explained in your post. I still see no timeline on when NetBSD will switch to mercurial, or if they could possibly change their mind in favor of git or otherwise. OpenBSD looks to be still using CVS, while DragonFlyBSD uses git. It looks like T2 project (t2sde.org) still uses subversion. Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On 18/12/20 14:02, Miroslav Lachman wrote: On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to hg (Mercurial). Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am just curious what leads to these decisions. This is a draft document discussing exactly this (I'm not the author, imp was) https://github.com/bsdimp/freebsd-git-docs/blob/main/git-why.md -- Guido Falsi ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 9:24 AM Gleb Popov wrote: > > > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:50 PM Warner Losh wrote: > >> On Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:27 AM Guido Falsi wrote: >> >> > On 18/12/20 14:02, Miroslav Lachman wrote: >> > > On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> > > >> > >> NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from >> > >> cvs to hg (Mercurial). >> > > >> > > Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git >> > > and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am >> > > just curious what leads to these decisions. >> > > >> > >> > This is a draft document discussing exactly this (I'm not the author, >> > imp was) >> > >> > https://github.com/bsdimp/freebsd-git-docs/blob/main/git-why.md >> >> >> My blog >> >> http://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/09/freebsd-subversion-to-git-migration.html >> >> And this video I did >> https://youtu.be/uj1Ricrq0bs that starts with an old in joke... >> >> Warner >> > > I can't find anything about Mercurial in all three links. > Yes. I was answering the first question asked about FreeBSD and git... The clincher for me was that git is better supported by third party tools and has gotten quite good at 'recovery from oops' which mercurial is still lacking in both areas. I too have used both, and I had to re clone my hg tree several times, but so far have never screwed up a git repo so bad I had to reclone... The history rewriting of git is more integrated and more polished than the equivalent in hg, as are the rebase workflows which really help have a cleaner history... Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020 at 7:50 PM Warner Losh wrote: > On Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:27 AM Guido Falsi wrote: > > > On 18/12/20 14:02, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > > On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > > > >> NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from > > >> cvs to hg (Mercurial). > > > > > > Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git > > > and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am > > > just curious what leads to these decisions. > > > > > > > This is a draft document discussing exactly this (I'm not the author, > > imp was) > > > > https://github.com/bsdimp/freebsd-git-docs/blob/main/git-why.md > > > My blog > http://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/09/freebsd-subversion-to-git-migration.html > > And this video I did > https://youtu.be/uj1Ricrq0bs that starts with an old in joke... > > Warner > I can't find anything about Mercurial in all three links. ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:27 AM Guido Falsi wrote: > On 18/12/20 14:02, Miroslav Lachman wrote: > > On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: > > > >> NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from > >> cvs to hg (Mercurial). > > > > Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git > > and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am > > just curious what leads to these decisions. > > > > This is a draft document discussing exactly this (I'm not the author, > imp was) > > https://github.com/bsdimp/freebsd-git-docs/blob/main/git-why.md My blog http://bsdimp.blogspot.com/2020/09/freebsd-subversion-to-git-migration.html And this video I did https://youtu.be/uj1Ricrq0bs that starts with an old in joke... Warner > > -- > Guido Falsi > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
> On 18 Dec 2020, at 14:02, Miroslav Lachman <000.f...@quip.cz> wrote: > > On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: > >> NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to >> hg (Mercurial). > > Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git and > why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am just curious > what leads to these decisions. Joerg Sonnenberger had a talk about it: https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/netbsd_and_mercurial/ At NetBSD it is not that straightforward: - git is used for pkgsrc-wip - src, xsrc and pkgsrc are in CVS and there are *plans* to move to hg, but there are no fixed deadlines when this will be done. otis ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On 25/11/2020 06:54, Thomas Mueller wrote: NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to hg (Mercurial). Do anybody have a link to some documents stating why FreeBSD chose Git and why NetBSD chose Mercurial? I am using both tools at $WORK, I am just curious what leads to these decisions. Kind regards Miroslav Lachman ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Wed, 2020-11-25 at 10:05:48 -0500, Shawn Webb wrote: On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 04:00:50PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: > > > As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? > > I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > > > > 'pkg add git' is your choice now. pkg install not pkg add There's also fetch for a one-time download of the ports tree (bootstrapping ports, for example). A HardenedBSD user would do this: fetch -o ports.tar.gz \ https://git-01.md.hardenedbsd.org/HardenedBSD/hardenedbsd-ports/archive/master.tar.gz mkdir -p /usr/ports tar -xf ports.tar.gz --strip-components 1 -C /usr/ports Something similar could be done in FreeBSDlandia. cgit supports this of course, so the troglodytes can download src/ports/doc from cgit, using only FreeBSD-provided tools like so: fetch -o- https://cgit.freebsd.org/doc/snapshot/doc-main.tar.gz | tar -C /usr/doc -xf - hth Uli ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 8:09 AM Mark Linimon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > We hope to have it finished in time for 13.0. > > I also feel that it should be more a "requirement". > > I don't see the rush in getting 13.0 out the door. There is a lot to > get working (especially in ports-land). > Without someone dedicated to make it happen, it can't be more than a 'hope to have it finished' item. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 9:25 AM Christian Weisgerber wrote: > On 2020-11-25, Warner Losh wrote: > > >> Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? > > > > We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't > > quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. > > Since got can't fetch from http(s) yet, there was talk of setting > up anon-ssh access. What became of that? > It's on the list, but at a lower priority than getting the basics in place. > devel/got, for those who want to play. > Yes. You can also play with the github FreeBSD mirror via ssh, but you have to create an account. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 6:16 AM tech-lists wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > >On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: > > > >> As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git > repo? > >> I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > >> > >'pkg add git' is your choice now. > > > >> Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? > > > >We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't > >quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. > > Do you agree that this situation is a bad look for an *operating system* ? > Having to depend on a third-party tool to stay up-to-date and secure. > In the long term, perhaps. During a short-term transition, it seems acceptable. > In multiple locations it is said that installing a port is *at your own > risk*. Personally, I'd like the official updating tool to have had the > same level of analysis (and so the same level of "risk") on it as the base > OS, > (and also be under the same licence). > You can establish your own chain of trust to the sources, you can start here https://mirrors.edge.kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/ if building from ports or installing a package is deemed to be too insecure. > I mean, shouldn't all the basic tools be present in an OS, at least in > order to update it? And *then* migrate to the update method? > git is a perfectly fine tool. Moving to git has a number of advantages to the project, so we must weigh the many different factors in doing that and not let a single item gate the entire process if that single item doesn't add enough value. -current is for bleeding edge users, and the cost / benefit analysis is skewed heavily towards the convenience of the developers when a choice needs to be made. In this case, the choice was made to progress with the cutover of the repo while allowing the natural development of got to proceed in parallel. One way to help this situation would be to contribute code to OpenBSD's got to help it mature to the point we can include it in the base system. There's logistical issues as well: today got only clones via ssh, and the typical distribution of git is via the git or https protocols (though developers often push commits via ssh). To overcome these limitations, we'd have to stand up additional infrastructure to allow for anonymous ssh into mirrors. This is in the planning stages, but is taking a back seat at the moment to getting the basic infrastructure up and running. > >When we migrated from CVS to Subversion, we didn't grow svnlite in > >the base for many months after the conversion. > > A mistake then and a mistake now with svn to git IMO. It wasn't considered a mistake at the time, nor do I consider this a mistake now. At the time Peter Wemm did the cutover, moving to a SCM that had atomic commits was considered a higher priority than necessarily needing svn in the base system. So our adaptation of svn back in the day proceeded in parallel with a repackaging of svn to allow a minimal version to be included with the base system. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On 2020-11-25, Warner Losh wrote: >> Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? > > We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't > quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. Since got can't fetch from http(s) yet, there was talk of setting up anon-ssh access. What became of that? devel/got, for those who want to play. -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > We hope to have it finished in time for 13.0. I also feel that it should be more a "requirement". I don't see the rush in getting 13.0 out the door. There is a lot to get working (especially in ports-land). mcl ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 04:00:50PM +0100, Baptiste Daroussin wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: > > > > > As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? > > > I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > > > > > > > 'pkg add git' is your choice now. > > pkg install not pkg add There's also fetch for a one-time download of the ports tree (bootstrapping ports, for example). A HardenedBSD user would do this: fetch -o ports.tar.gz \ https://git-01.md.hardenedbsd.org/HardenedBSD/hardenedbsd-ports/archive/master.tar.gz mkdir -p /usr/ports tar -xf ports.tar.gz --strip-components 1 -C /usr/ports Something similar could be done in FreeBSDlandia. Thanks, -- Shawn Webb Cofounder / Security Engineer HardenedBSD GPG Key ID: 0xFF2E67A277F8E1FA GPG Key Fingerprint: D206 BB45 15E0 9C49 0CF9 3633 C85B 0AF8 AB23 0FB2 https://git-01.md.hardenedbsd.org/HardenedBSD/pubkeys/src/branch/master/Shawn_Webb/03A4CBEBB82EA5A67D9F3853FF2E67A277F8E1FA.pub.asc signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: > > > As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? > > I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > > > > 'pkg add git' is your choice now. pkg install not pkg add > > > > Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? > > > > We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't > quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. When we migrated from CVS to > Subversion, we didn't grow svnlite in the base for many months after the > conversion. We hope to have it finished in time for 13.0. > > Warner > ___ > freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: git tools for building in base?
Hi, On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 09:59:15PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote: On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? 'pkg add git' is your choice now. Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. Do you agree that this situation is a bad look for an *operating system* ? Having to depend on a third-party tool to stay up-to-date and secure. In multiple locations it is said that installing a port is *at your own risk*. Personally, I'd like the official updating tool to have had the same level of analysis (and so the same level of "risk") on it as the base OS, (and also be under the same licence). I mean, shouldn't all the basic tools be present in an OS, at least in order to update it? And *then* migrate to the update method? When we migrated from CVS to Subversion, we didn't grow svnlite in the base for many months after the conversion. A mistake then and a mistake now with svn to git IMO. -- J. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: git tools for building in base?
from tech-lists: > As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? > I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? Good question, and I hope the developers and others in charge are reading your post. You could be sure to have the ports tree downloaded and in place, ready for action to build and install git if you haven't already. They (ports tree) will stay on svn for some time after freebsd-current switches to git. I am not sure if there is or will be a lite version of git. Current could add this if feasible at any time, but stable and release might not be able to do this between releases (security update?). NetBSD users face a similar problem with their upcoming switch from cvs to hg (Mercurial). Tom ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: git tools for building in base?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 2:19 PM tech-lists wrote: > As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? > I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? > 'pkg add git' is your choice now. > Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? > We will have got (from OpenBSD: Game Of Trees) in the future. It isn't quite there yet, however, so it's not in base. When we migrated from CVS to Subversion, we didn't grow svnlite in the base for many months after the conversion. We hope to have it finished in time for 13.0. Warner ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
git tools for building in base?
Hi, As subject - what will there be in base to interact with the new git repo? I mean, right now, for svn there is svnlite. What for git? Shouldn't it be in base before the move to git? thanks, -- J. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
