Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not
perfect and requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my
local tree within the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch
makes a lot of sense.
Does it? How does having a stable and unstable branch differ from
Quoting Molle Bestefich [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does it? How does having a stable and unstable branch differ from
having stable and unstable keywords?
Agreed. That doesn't make sense.
It does if you have a separate stable tree per-arch. With the current
tree design, it's too easy to break
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo
tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and
Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to
support without overloading the arch
On 5/4/06, Chris Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo
tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and
Subversion's support for branching would make it a
On Thu, 04 May 2006 11:44:18 +0100
Stuart Herbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, if you have a separate tree per-arch, that tree can be tested
and approved for release as a single unit.
How big would this tree be? Would it be every package? How will this make the
arch teams' life easier
On Thursday 04 May 2006 14:17, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Talking about an SVN perspective ... provided the trees live in a
single repository (which would make a lot of sense), it would be very
straightforward to provide a tool to copy a particular ebuild its
files from an unstable tree
On Sunday 30 April 2006 03:55, Lance Albertson wrote:
Here's an idea I had tonight. Since we're going to be doing the Google
SoC this summer, perhaps a great project would be having someone work
on this migration (or at least do an unbiased test implementation). I'd
be willing to provide an
On Wed, 2006-05-03 at 11:43 +0200, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Sunday 30 April 2006 03:55, Lance Albertson wrote:
Here's an idea I had tonight. Since we're going to be doing the Google
SoC this summer, perhaps a great project would be having someone work
on this migration (or at least do an
On Friday 28 April 2006 21:20, Grant Goodyear wrote:
Ryan Phillips wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 01:57:30PM CDT]
I disagree. The developers should make *all* the decisions.
Originally, Gentoo was effectively a meritocracy. It's now, in some
respects, a republic. If you want a democracy, feel
On Saturday 29 April 2006 19:52, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Stable and unstable keywords are a hack on top of a version control
system. We wouldn't have them if gentoo used an SCM that supports
true branches. There would be no need.
Umm, I'm not
On 30/04/06, Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:50:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo
project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM:
All this talk about switching to a more
On Mon, 2006-05-01 at 13:23 +0100, Chris Bainbridge wrote:
The main purpose that comes to mind is to help the groups working in
overlays (layman -L shows 28 current overlays; there may be more). It
should enable easier merging of trees, local tree management, sharing
experimental changes
Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hrm. Don't we get that benefit only if the overlays switch over to
using the same distributed VCS that the main tree moves to?
The short answer is yes.
The long answer is that it's much easier to interconvert histories
between most DVCS's than to convert back and forth
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1].
While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo
project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM:
http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/cairo/2006-February/006255.html
Thanks,
Donnie
--
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
[1] http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
[2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/bzr-eval/
[3]
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/dcm_evaluation_mercurial/
[4]
Luca Barbato wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
[1] http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/tools-discuss/2006-April/000366.html
[2] http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/bzr-eval/
[3]
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/tools/scm/dcm_evaluation_mercurial/
[4]
On Sun, Apr 30, 2006 at 12:50:45AM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
While we're posting useful links, here's another one from the cairo
project on switching from CVS to some distributed SCM:
All this talk about switching to a more powerful SCM I can understand
- but what would the purpose of
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Stable and unstable keywords are a hack on top of a version control
system. We wouldn't have them if gentoo used an SCM that supports true
branches. There would be no need.
Umm, I'm not an ebuild dev, but how would users mix stable and unstable
packages in such a case?
On Friday 28 April 2006 20:14, Ryan Phillips wrote:
__Problem: Live Tree__
Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not perfect
and requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my local tree
within the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch makes a lot of
On Friday 28 April 2006 23:42, Ryan Phillips wrote:
svn
+ Atomic Commits
+ Merging/tagging/brancing is a simple copy operation
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04.html
+ lots of benefits
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.intro.features.html
there is more I'm sure
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 03:02:46PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 23:42, Ryan Phillips wrote:
svn
+ Atomic Commits
+ Merging/tagging/brancing is a simple copy operation
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04.html
+ lots of benefits
On Saturday 29 April 2006 15:21, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
The commit marked with @ is a special comit called a 'merge'.
I hope that clarifies the merge tracking part.
You just described what merging is. Svn can do that too with svn merge. But,
if I merge changesets from branch A to B
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 03:54:17PM +0300, Dan Armak wrote:
On Saturday 29 April 2006 15:21, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
The commit marked with @ is a special comit called a 'merge'.
I hope that clarifies the merge tracking part.
You just described what merging is. Svn can do that too with svn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
What is interesting is that Source Mage Linux has already voted on a proposal
similar to mine[2]. I truly think that making some changes in the gentoo
way
would benefit us and make gentoo a truly better distribution.
Ryan
Gentoo Developer
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 05:01:20PM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Cort wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:42:57 +0200
Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.. What can we do to improve things?
I think that there should be some sort
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better
developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick
in and out people.
Empirical evidence agrees.
Our current quiz practices have done a good
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better
developers, why you think harder tests would cut down more on the quick
in and out people.
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:05:06PM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Simon Stelling wrote:
Hi Ryan,
Ryan Phillips wrote:
I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said
it. The
entire project has reached a level of
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 09:38:17AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Portnoy wrote:
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:41:31AM -0500, Daniel Goller wrote:
inviting community) and why you think stricter test make for better
developers, why you think
Jan Kundrát wrote:
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Stable and unstable keywords are a hack on top of a version control
system. We wouldn't have them if gentoo used an SCM that supports true
branches. There would be no need.
Umm, I'm not an ebuild dev, but how would users mix stable and unstable
Hi Ryan,
I hope you find these comments useful.
On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 10:14 -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
__Problem: Developer Growth__
Why do people have to take a test?
There are certain skills we need a developer to demonstrate before we
can give them commit access. There is currently
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 10:33:11PM +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
__Problem: Developer Growth__
Why do people have to take a test?
There are certain skills we need a developer to demonstrate before we
can give them commit access. There is currently no opportunity for a
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1]. The three finalists
were bazaar[2], mercurial[3] and git[4], and the winner was eventually
mercurial. This is also the recommended choice from the EuroBSDcon
slides, so definitely something to consider.
Indeed,
Stuart Herbert wrote:
__Problem: CVS__
CVS is one of the worst application ever created.
Hear, hear.
I'd like to see a move to Subversion made a priority for 2006. If there
are problems with Subversion's performance with our tree, engage with
its authors to obtain improvements. But
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 08:55:52PM -0500, Lance Albertson wrote:
Stuart Herbert wrote:
__Problem: CVS__
CVS is one of the worst application ever created.
Hear, hear.
I'd like to see a move to Subversion made a priority for 2006. If there
are problems with Subversion's
On Sat, Apr 29, 2006 at 05:00:10PM -0700, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Alexandre Buisse wrote:
The opensolaris project has done a similar thing[1]. The three finalists
were bazaar[2], mercurial[3] and git[4], and the winner was eventually
mercurial. This is also the recommended choice from the
Stuart Herbert wrote:
I'm offering to lead the effort to establish a global Gentoo developer
conference, and to do whatever it takes to get everything we need to
make this happen. Now who's up for this? :)
Best regards,
Stu
That sounds like a great idea.
-Ryan
--
This is a follow up to Mark's (halcy0n's) thread regarding QA Policies and
seemant's letter on herds, teams, and projects.
I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it. The
entire project has reached a level of being too political and trying to solve
certain problems
Ryan Phillips wrote:
This is a follow up to Mark's (halcy0n's) thread regarding QA Policies and
seemant's letter on herds, teams, and projects.
I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it.
The
entire project has reached a level of being too political and
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:53AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to gentoo
should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that
helps the project move forward. If yes, then commit access should be
Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:53AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to
gentoo
should be as easy as 1. has the user contributed numerous (~5+) patches that
helps the project move
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:22 am, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I believe we have a problem enticing new devlopers to join. It
shouldn't be difficult in learning how to commit changes to a tree.
There's much more involved than more people think, if you'd like I can send
you an entire long list of
Alec Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ryan Phillips wrote:
This is a follow up to Mark's (halcy0n's) thread regarding QA Policies and
seemant's letter on herds, teams, and projects.
I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it.
The
entire project has
Ryan Phillips wrote:
The council should not vote on gleps are provide policy. They should
be there to handle the money and world-wide problems.
The developers should drive innovation; not the council.
As in all democracies things get done slowly. We don't need a
democracy within Gentoo, just
Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Sure, then you get this:
Hey can I join?
OK
*adds user*
-- 2 weeks later --
Anyone heard from user?
No
The solution is to have them been an active contributor for say 6
months.
-ryan
pgpR35ZcUmZet.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Ryan Phillips wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 12:14:53PM CDT]
__Problem: Developer Growth__
I've seen suggestions before that one of the things limiting Gentoo's
growth right now is the hurdles involved in becoming a dev. I don't
really think the dev quiz is all that onerous, but I'm willing to listen
Alin Nastac [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ryan Phillips wrote:
The council should not vote on gleps are provide policy. They should
be there to handle the money and world-wide problems.
The developers should drive innovation; not the council.
As in all democracies things get done slowly.
On Friday 28 April 2006 11:50 am, Ryan Phillips wrote:
The solution is to have them been an active contributor for say 6
months.
Ok, but most active contributors are people that submit ebuilds to devs and
know nothing about the structure/policy/whatever about ebuilds. If you're
not a dev,
Grant Goodyear wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 01:55:01PM CDT]
It's not quite true that the Council votes on GLEPs, but that's not
really germane to your overall point.
Oh, that was your point. Mea culpa.
Okay, to address that point, the way that the current system works is
that a GLEP is sent to
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Does anyone agree that having a council is too political? I strongly
believe it stifles gentoo.
I believe a non-representative democracy is stifling, and buries
everybody in constant votes etc.
Donnie
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:57:30AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
Bypass the council. The council should be there only for when we get
sued, and manage the money we make.
Does anyone agree that having a council is too political? I strongly
believe it stifles gentoo.
You're confusing Council
Ryan Phillips wrote: [Fri Apr 28 2006, 01:57:30PM CDT]
I disagree. The developers should make *all* the decisions.
Originally, Gentoo was effectively a meritocracy. It's now, in some
respects, a republic. If you want a democracy, feel free to draft a new
metastructure proposal (feel free to
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well...
__Problem: CVS__
CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree
needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project
would be
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:29 -0700
Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but most active contributors are people that submit ebuilds to
devs and know nothing about the structure/policy/whatever about
ebuilds. If you're not a dev, you're probably not going to worry
about revision bumps.
Tim Yamin wrote:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:55:01PM -0500, Grant Goodyear wrote:
CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well...
__Problem: CVS__
CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree
needs to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project
would
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 11:22:05AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
Jon Portnoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 10:14:53AM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I find that developer growth as being a problem. Adding a developer to
gentoo
should be as easy as 1. has the user
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 08:35:40PM +0100, Stephen Bennett wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 12:03:29 -0700
Chris White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, but most active contributors are people that submit ebuilds to
devs and know nothing about the structure/policy/whatever about
ebuilds. If you're
Ryan Phillips wrote:
The council should not vote on gleps are provide policy. They should
be there to handle the money and world-wide problems.
The developers should drive innovation; not the council.
You apparently confuse the trustees and the council. And you apparently
did miss the
Tim Yamin wrote:
Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk? (http://svk.elixus.org)
And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare
checkout performance on it as well.
I've been planning to do a more detailed comparison of all the popular
SCM's out there
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:42:40PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
cogito
- Not practical
* the lots of little files doesn't scale well with the size
of the portage tree
Sure, that's why they invented git repack.
* In addition, git only allows checkins from the project parent.
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ryan Phillips wrote:
git - terrible with lots of tiny little files
Can you provide some evidence to support this?
I posted in more detail on SCMs elsewhere today.
Sure.
git only allows commits from the project parent. Meaning that if
there was a
Fernando J. Pereda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 01:42:40PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
cogito
- Not practical
* the lots of little files doesn't scale well with the size
of the portage tree
Sure, that's why they invented git repack.
* In addition,
Ryan:
I think you are talking about very old versions of Git:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:20:43PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
What I meant is, if you have a change within one directory pending
a commit, and you have a commit pending in a current directory, both
files will be picked up for the
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:06:36PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
Second issue with git, is that with lots of tiny little files things
don't work so well. I tried converting our portage tree into a git
tree, and it ran for around 2 days until I finally killed it. If we
didn't want to preserve
Fernando J. Pereda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Ryan:
I think you are talking about very old versions of Git:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:20:43PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
What I meant is, if you have a change within one directory pending
a commit, and you have a commit pending in a current
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:42:57 +0200
Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.. What can we do to improve things?
I think that there should be some sort of organized way of connecting potential
mentors and potential recruits. There is a very enthusiastic user who has been
contributing great
Fernando J. Pereda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:06:36PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
Second issue with git, is that with lots of tiny little files things
don't work so well. I tried converting our portage tree into a git
tree, and it ran for around 2 days until I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thomas Cort wrote:
On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 21:42:57 +0200
Bryan Østergaard [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So.. What can we do to improve things?
I think that there should be some sort of organized way of connecting
potential mentors and potential
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:56:26PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I sorta like git in certain aspects. If git would work better than
CVS or anything other SCM I'm for it. Right now, _anything_ would be
better than CVS.
I don't really know if Git is suitable for our workflow though... I was
just
Fernando J. Pereda [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Fri, Apr 28, 2006 at 02:49:18PM -0700, Ryan Phillips wrote:
the only option I saw was git-commit -o and you had to specify the
files that you wanted to commit.
I tried doing a git-commit paths/ and still everything wants to be
committed.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ryan Phillips wrote:
Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Tim Yamin wrote:
Speaking of which, has anybody done any tests with svk?
(http://svk.elixus.org)
And: http://svk.elixus.org/?WhySVK -- it would be interesting to compare
checkout
Grant Goodyear schrieb:
Some questions that need to be answered:
* Can the repo be converted while maintaining the history?
* How long does a full checkout take?
* How much disk space does a full checkout require?
* Is there a viewcvs equivalent available?
* Others that I can't think of
Hi Ryan,
Ryan Phillips wrote:
I believe the way Gentoo is doing things is broken. There I have said it. The
entire project has reached a level of being too political and trying to solve
certain problems in the wrong way.
I think it actually works quite well. Yes, there is space for
On Friday 28 April 2006 04:14 pm, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I disagree. By committing something to the current tree it has the
ability to effect a lot of people. What happens when we need to reverse a
commit? It isn't that easy with CVS.
cvs admin -or1.1
(delete revision 1.1)
cvs admin
Chris White wrote:
On Friday 28 April 2006 04:14 pm, Ryan Phillips wrote:
I disagree. By committing something to the current tree it has the
ability to effect a lot of people. What happens when we need to reverse a
commit? It isn't that easy with CVS.
cvs admin -or1.1
(delete revision 1.1)
75 matches
Mail list logo
