Hi
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 4:10 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
[2015-07-18 15:13:43 -0700] Anatol Pomozov:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
Instead I suggest we use the full commit hash. In the example above,
that'd become something
On 19/07/15 15:29, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2015-07-19 06:52:39 +0200] Jerome Leclanche:
git tags can and should be pgp-signed, especially if the upstream is
relying purely on git for releases. Is any package not covered by
that?
That would certainly be the ideal way of doing things but I
On 18/07, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2015-07-18 22:32:47 -0400] Dave Reisner:
Tags are more explicitly published by upstreams than commit hashes. I'm
not sure I understand the benefit of switching. Why is it preferrable to
use the value rather than the pointer? What makes it better?
The commit
Hi,
As more of our official packages use git sources, I'd like to suggest we
always enforce some kind of checksum verification. More specifically,
I'd like us to avoid using straightforward source arrays such as:
source=(git://github.com/systemd/systemd.git#tag=v$pkgver)
Hi
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
Hi,
As more of our official packages use git sources, I'd like to suggest we
always enforce some kind of checksum verification. More specifically,
I'd like us to avoid using straightforward source arrays such as:
[2015-07-18 22:32:47 -0400] Dave Reisner:
Tags are more explicitly published by upstreams than commit hashes. I'm
not sure I understand the benefit of switching. Why is it preferrable to
use the value rather than the pointer? What makes it better?
The commit hash is a checksum that ensures the
On 19 July 2015 at 05:43, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
[2015-07-18 22:32:47 -0400] Dave Reisner:
Tags are more explicitly published by upstreams than commit hashes. I'm
not sure I understand the benefit of switching. Why is it preferrable to
use the value rather than the pointer?
[2015-07-19 06:52:39 +0200] Jerome Leclanche:
git tags can and should be pgp-signed, especially if the upstream is
relying purely on git for releases. Is any package not covered by
that?
That would certainly be the ideal way of doing things but I don't
believe pacman currently knows how to
[2015-07-18 15:13:43 -0700] Anatol Pomozov:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
Instead I suggest we use the full commit hash. In the example above,
that'd become something like:
_commit=9a50ce20ef60263a6c88c29470ce761fcc424f2d
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 01:10:29PM -1000, Gaetan Bisson wrote:
[2015-07-18 15:13:43 -0700] Anatol Pomozov:
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 1:04 PM, Gaetan Bisson bis...@archlinux.org wrote:
Instead I suggest we use the full commit hash. In the example above,
that'd become something like:
What about handling mass-edits?
Right now I feel the approach of having one repo for core/extra and one for
community with branches for testing would be better, my only issue with
this being that I wouldn't tag each package release in it and I don't
really see the need for it.
I am unconvinced
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote:
What about handling mass-edits?
Right now I feel the approach of having one repo for core/extra and one for
community with branches for testing would be better, my only issue with
this being that I wouldn't tag each
On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 09:47:18AM +0200, Massimiliano Torromeo wrote:
What about handling mass-edits?
Really, how often do you do this? Why would your workflow be so
different? Instead of 'svn up', you'd 'git clone'. Instead of 'svn
commit', you'd write a for loop with 'git commit'. The actual
The following text was sent to me by Kevin Mihelich @ Arch Linux ARM,
with permission to post it here as well:
We poll the svntogit repo regularly to bring up updates to packages
that are made by Arch maintainers, and build everything as-is. For
packages that require modifications (configure
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
Now, if I may, here's how your decisions on how you set up a git repo
in place of svn affect us. Right now, with the svntogit providing a
merged repo of all the packages in two places (core/extra in one,
community in
Hi,
Thanks for the feedback!
As a summary:
* The reception of the idea of introducing git varies from strongly in
favor to no objection (or implicitly in favor). There is only one
suggestion that svn might be easier for our use.
* At least one person is happy to work on the transition (Tom
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:55:21PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan connor.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any
On 30.09.2013 09:50, Ike Devolder wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 09:55:21PM +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan connor.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official packages?
Yes, this can not be done in a heartbeat. The tools and documentation
needs to be updated and the workflow needs to
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official packages?
I'm strongly in favor of git, and would
Am 29.09.2013 21:07, schrieb Tom Gundersen:
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official packages?
One reason to prefer svn is that you can do a non-recursive
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 9:48 PM, Connor Behan connor.be...@gmail.com wrote:
On 29/09/13 12:25 PM, Alexander R?dseth wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the
On 30 September 2013 03:00, Alexander Rødseth rods...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
As I gather, we all like git better than svn, for a long list of
reasons. Are there any objections to switching over from svn to git for
repositories for the official packages?
Yes, this can not be done in a
Jouke Witteveen has been working on netcfg recently and we finally had a
new release. I would like to give him git-shell access so he can push to
the netcfg repository directly. This would make him the new netcfg
maintainer.
I will still handle releases for now as soon as he pushes an annotated
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Thomas Bächler tho...@archlinux.org wrote:
Jouke Witteveen has been working on netcfg recently and we finally had a
new release. I would like to give him git-shell access so he can push to
the netcfg repository directly. This would make him the new netcfg
On 08/25/2011 03:49 AM, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Jan de Grootj...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 00:15 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial
On 25 August 2011 07:04, Dan McGee dpmc...@gmail.com wrote:
...
SNIP
...
Great. Another bitchfest on this topic! I'm going to get a bit pissy
here because it isn't like git wasn't around when we moved to SVN, and
we came to the conclusion then that the workflow with git was no
better/worse
On 08/25/2011 06:08 AM, Ray Rashif wrote:
I share the same sentiments bit for bit, so I am in full agreement
with Dan, JGC, Allan Ionut. I have always stressed the fact, even
just very recently, to someone who was interested in Arch, that even
though I use Git personally, Subversion makes the
2011/8/24 Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not anywhere else, it's slow.
We agreed on one git repo per package because you can't do partial
checkouts in
On Thu, 25 Aug 2011, 16:08:33 CEST, Paul Mattal p...@mattal.com wrote:
I register my vote for keeping SVN, too; it was the right tool for
this particular job when we chose it, and I think it's still the
right tool for this particular job.
Agree. -1 to switch to Git. Our job doesn't need a
Am Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:53:55 +0200
schrieb Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not anywhere else, it's slow.
Latest devtools changes break some commits not
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:38 PM, Andreas Radke andy...@archlinux.org wrote:
Am Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:53:55 +0200
schrieb Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not anywhere else, it's slow.
We agreed on one git repo per package because you can't do partial
checkouts in git and you hardly need the history of all
On 25 August 2011 04:53, Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at wrote:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
What is this about, actually? Moving to Git?
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not anywhere else, it's slow.
I've never had
On 24.08.2011 23:09, Ray Rashif wrote:
On 25 August 2011 04:53, Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at wrote:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
What is this about, actually? Moving to Git?
Yeah, it's about moving our repos from svn to git.
--
Florian Pritz
Am 24.08.2011 22:53, schrieb Florian Pritz:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
SVN checkouts tend to break, some people only use it for our repos and
not anywhere else, it's slow.
We agreed on one git repo per package because you can't do partial
checkouts
Am 24.08.2011 22:53, schrieb Florian Pritz:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial operations is a huge
PITA.
A few comments below:
On Wed, Aug 24,
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 3:53 PM, Florian Pritz bluew...@xinu.at wrote:
So it came up in IRC again and I'll try to sum up the discussion:
Great. Another bitchfest on this topic! I'm going to get a bit pissy
here because it isn't like git wasn't around when we moved to SVN, and
we came to the
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 00:15 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial operations is a huge
PITA.
IMHO the only nice features I like from git that aren't in SVN are
bisect and the possibility
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Jan de Groot j...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 00:15 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial operations is a huge
PITA.
IMHO the only nice
On 25/08/11 10:49, Tom Gundersen wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 1:24 AM, Jan de Grootj...@jgc.homeip.net wrote:
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 00:15 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
Thanks to everyone involved with pushing this. I can not wait to get
rid of SVN. Doing anything but the most trivial
Hey guys,
Just wanted to let you all know that we have given git push access to
the AUR to both callan and loui. We set them up with ONLY git-shell
accounts so they can't muck with gerolde or break anything.
Cheers,
Aaron
43 matches
Mail list logo
