On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
Since most of us want clean cut solution so i will close bug #333699 as
WONTFIX
Along these lines, I'm looking at 333531 (the git migration tracker),
and it seems like there isn't actually much to do:
333685 - Seems
Ok.
Since most of us want clean cut solution so i will close bug #333699
as WONTFIX
--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
On Fri, 25 May 2012, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 25 May 2012 13:21, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
So I'm a bit confused. Is GitHub open source?
Your confusion begets more confusion:
Whether or not Github is open-source seems orthogonal to whether or
not we use it, as github is a
On 25 May 2012 18:12, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Actually, Alec's question is not so far-fetched. The Gentoo Social
Contract says that Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software
unless it is open source.
Though in the case of github, gentoo is not depending upon it.
Github
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 25 May 2012 18:12, Ulrich Mueller u...@gentoo.org wrote:
Actually, Alec's question is not so far-fetched. The Gentoo Social
Contract says that Gentoo will never depend upon a piece of software
unless it is open
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 07:56:58 AM Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
Dan Douglas orm...@gmail.com wrote:
If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
with.
Most of us
El mié, 23-05-2012 a las 17:00 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia escribió:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org
wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight
On 24 May 2012 05:35, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
Full clone will be about 1G or so but no more then 2. If we will drop
changelog it will be much smaller
And if you use git commit signing instead of ebuild manifests,
intra-commit churn will almost be negligible. :D
--
Kent
On 24 May 2012 08:32, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
Sure. The slow commit rate encourages careful deliberation before
hitting the enter key, which therefore improves quality.
Then, if you do make a mistake the slow commit rate means that fixing
that mistake can take a long time,
Kent Fredric писал 2012-05-24 13:02:
On 24 May 2012 05:35, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
Full clone will be about 1G or so but no more then 2. If we will
drop
changelog it will be much smaller
And if you use git commit signing instead of ebuild manifests,
intra-commit churn will
On 24 May 2012 09:48, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 11:14 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using
it.
First,
On Thu, 24 May 2012 22:17:20 +1200
Kent Fredric kentfred...@gmail.com wrote:
On 24 May 2012 09:48, Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 11:14 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with github folks to add our repo as 'mirror'.
Can we keep the master on Gentoo hardware please.
Also, there still should be a bug at b.g.o and git format-patch works
just fine for that. Maybe it's only github now
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can we keep the master on Gentoo hardware please.
Also, there still should be a bug at b.g.o and git format-patch works
just fine for that. Maybe it's only github now but how many places is a
developer supposed to
On Thu, 24 May 2012 17:02:24 +0200
Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with github folks to add our repo as 'mirror'.
Can we keep the master on Gentoo hardware please.
Yes, that's the intent. I'm just
On 24/05/2012 03:19, Mark Wright wrote:
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org writes:
Clean cut turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input - no changes), some
magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
duration) and we
On 25 May 2012 03:02, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200
Michał Górny mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with github folks to add our repo as 'mirror'.
Can we keep the master on Gentoo hardware please.
Definitely. But having a mirror on github will
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 24/05/12 01:13 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 25 May 2012 03:02, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200 Michał Górny
mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with github folks to add our repo as 'mirror'.
Can we
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 24 May 2012 13:52:32 -0400
Ian Stakenvicius a...@gentoo.org wrote:
When the user has their tree up to how they want it, they can
either send a pull request to another gentoo dev who also has a
fork on github, or send a link to the commit
...is this something we (as the developer base) WANT non-dev's to be
able to do?? I would expect we'd want the tree to still be treated as
read-only-not-modifyable by the rest of the gentoo/linux community,
otherwise we're going to have a rather large mess on our hands
(multiple forks of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 05/24/2012 06:52 PM, Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 24/05/12 01:13 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 25 May 2012 03:02, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200 Michał Górny
mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 01:52:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
On 24/05/12 01:13 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
On 25 May 2012 03:02, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2012 16:40:02 +0200 Michał Górny
mgo...@gentoo.org wrote:
d) Talk with github folks to add our repo as
Am Mittwoch, 23. Mai 2012, 18:33:41 schrieb Michał Górny:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:42:37 +0200
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
*if you still read this* *wow*
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX testing git-cvsserver, make a clean cut and remove
On 24/05/12 02:37 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 01:52:32 PM Ian Stakenvicius wrote:
Of course it's read only - just like all other public
repositories. You don't want to accept improvments? I don't
understand this.
I have no problem with accepting improvements,
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Rich Freeman ri...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Ralph Sennhauser s...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can we keep the master on Gentoo hardware please.
Also, there still should be a bug at b.g.o and git format-patch works
just fine for that. Maybe
On 25 May 2012 13:21, Alec Warner anta...@gentoo.org wrote:
So I'm a bit confused. Is GitHub open source?
Your confusion begets more confusion:
Whether or not Github is open-source seems orthogonal to whether or
not we use it, as github is a website, a service, and there are a few
such
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
access to the portage tree.
Clean cut turns of cvs
Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the
On May 23, 2012 1:55 PM, Johannes Huber j...@gentoo.org wrote:
Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX testing git-cvsserver, make a clean cut and remove
this bug from the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git.
+1
Please cut cvs support once and for all.
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 09:25 AM, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX testing git-cvsserver, make a clean cut and
remove this bug from the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration
to git.
On 05/23/2012 07:54 AM, Johannes Huber wrote:
Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers
Please kill CVS with fire!
I've been waiting for this since 2009.
--
Fabio Erculiani
+1 for killing cvs
Johannes Huber писал 2012-05-23 15:54:
Am Mittwoch 23 Mai 2012, 14:42:37 schrieb Michael Weber:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing
On 05/23/2012 10:39 AM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
+1 for killing cvs
Looks like the bloodbath begins. I too am in favor of killing cvs.
--
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail: bluen...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 8040 5A4D 8709 21B1 1A88 33CE 979C AF40 D045 5535
On 23/05/12 14:42, Michael Weber wrote:
Hi,
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
access to the portage tree.
Clean cut turns of cvs
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 for git switch.
git-cvsserver would make sense if it would be completely transparent
for cvs client. and it's not. so why bother setuping fragile things?
- --
Sergei
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:42:37 +0200
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
*if you still read this* *wow*
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX testing git-cvsserver, make a clean cut and remove
this bug from the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Anthony G. Basile bluen...@gentoo.org wrote:
Looks like the bloodbath begins. I too am in favor of killing cvs.
Please, let it die. I'll miss my scripts, but I'll gladly deal with
that over whatever breakage comes along every time some cvs plugin
messes up
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:42:37 +0200
Kill it! And while we're at it, kill ChangeLogs as well!
/me hides...
+1
+1
+1
+1
...
--
Andreas K. Huettel
Gentoo Linux developer
kde, sci, arm, tex, printing
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Michał Górny писал 2012-05-23 19:33:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 14:42:37 +0200
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org wrote:
*if you still read this* *wow*
Please discuss my arguments and come to the conclusions to
RESO/WONT-FIX testing git-cvsserver, make a clean cut and remove
this bug from the blockers of
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
access to the portage tree.
The primary
Robin H. Johnson писал 2012-05-23 19:47:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
On 23.05.2012 18:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS)
Please don't go to this trouble for the ability to commit to portage
on *really* slow systems.
Matt Turner писал 2012-05-23 19:59:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:47 PM, Robin H. Johnson
robb...@gentoo.org wrote:
2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS)
Please don't go to this trouble for the ability to commit to portage
on *really* slow systems.
Isnt cvs too
Robin H. Johnson писал 2012-05-23 19:47:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
i've looked at the blockers of [TRACKER] portage migration to git
[1] and want to discuss testing git-cvsserver [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
Isnt git works with shallow clone? like
# git clone --depth 1 or any other desired value
git+ssh://gitrepo.uri::repo
So you can clone in this manner and push changes back
Also for depth = 1 pack size will be similar to
Robin H. Johnson писал 2012-05-23 20:19:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 07:58:17PM +0300, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
Isnt git works with shallow clone? like
# git clone --depth 1 or any other desired value
git+ssh://gitrepo.uri::repo
So you can clone in this manner and push changes back
Also for depth =
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if original
repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after shallow
clone point respectively
Is that going to be a practical condition
Rich Freeman писал 2012-05-23 20:32:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org
wrote:
That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if
original
repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after
shallow
clone point respectively
Is
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov ale...@gentoo.org wrote:
That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if original
repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after shallow
Alexey Shvetsov schrieb:
Shallow clones are also read-only last I checked.
That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if
original repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and
after shallow clone point respectively
There can also be breakage when someone
-1
--
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.
--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo)
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
+1 for git
I am more used to it, I find it easier to use regarding the utilities
as well as the gui and it is more consistent.
The fact alone that I can update a single directory in CVS without
updating all others can cause breakage, cause repoman
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough
Arun Raghavan писал 2012-05-23 22:37:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.
CVS is damn slow. On every
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.
I
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ezequiel Garcia elezegar...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org
wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 06:58 PM, Justin wrote:
Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git?
No, just to decide if git-cvsserver (providing cvs access) should be
part of an git master tree szenario.
In bugzie: Should
On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:25:54 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
systems and tight
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 07:06 PM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
Isnt cvs too sloow on mips? git is much more faster. Same for arm.
About big repos, well why not use shallow cloned repo. It will work
with plane history
Can we please cut that out.
I do/did arch
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:37:55PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:25:54 -0500
William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it.
Would users have a way of gaining read-only access? This would be EXTREMELY
helpful. If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
there
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/23/2012 11:14 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using
it.
First, I'd stick with the current rsync to spread the tree (mirror
Michael Weber x...@gentoo.org writes:
Clean cut turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input - no changes), some
magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Arun Raghavan ford_pref...@gentoo.org wrote:
I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough
On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
Dan Douglas orm...@gmail.com wrote:
If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
with.
Most of us will probably be doing that :P.
--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
71 matches
Mail list logo
