[gentoo-dev] Git conversions of gentoo-x86 and gentoo CVS repositories

As some of you may already know, I have worked on a new conversion of the Gentoo ebuild repository (aka gentoo-x86 in CVS) to Git, using cvs-fast-export. This is now available on Gentoo infrastructure: https://gitweb.gentoo.org/archive/repo/gentoo-2.git/ A description of the conversion process

[gentoo-dev] Git repo mirrors & gentoo-ci stopped for updates

Hi, all. The git mirror updates and gentoo-ci are currently stopped for maintenance. I am attempting a major pkgcore upgrade, and a matching switch from Python 2 to Python 3. Ideally, it should be up again in 2-3 hours at most but I do expect trouble. During the time git syncing mirror will not

Re: [gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

The git.r3 eclass method seems good practice for a specific commit. I'll have a look at the snap site today (AEST) - see if I can find a tarball - this seems preferable to commit.Thanks for the very helpful replies; On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 8:04 AM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:31

Re: [gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

On Mon, 16 Oct 2017 13:31:53 +1000 Damo Brisbane wrote: > Hello, > > I am wanting to make an ebuild for Intel's (Apache 2 licensed) snap > monitoring framework (https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap). It seems the > current version (2.0.0) does not compile the golang binaries with some type > of re

Re: [gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

В письме от понедельник, 16 октября 2017 г. 13:42:05 +07 пользователь Azamat Hackimov написал: > Github creates tarballs for tags automatically, for 1.3.0 tag it would be There is go eclasses for that, and I guess OP wanted advice about some go- eclasses magic for that.

Re: [gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

Github creates tarballs for tags automatically, for 1.3.0 tag it would be https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap/archive/1.3.0.tar.gz, so you don't need to use git eclass. SRC_URI would look like: SRC_URI="https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap/archive/${PV}.tar.gz -> ${P}.tar.gz" 2017-10-16 11:13 GMT+05

Re: [gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

October 16, 2017 5:30 AM, "Damo Brisbane" wrote: Hello, I am wanting to make an ebuild for Intel's (Apache 2 licensed) snap monitoring framework (https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap (https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap)). It seems the current version (2.0.0) does not compile the golang binaries

[gentoo-dev] git checkout in ebuild?

Hello, I am wanting to make an ebuild for Intel's (Apache 2 licensed) snap monitoring framework (https://github.com/intelsdi-x/snap). It seems the current version (2.0.0) does not compile the golang binaries with some type of recent grpc API incompatibility. I can successfully compile by going: g

Re: [gentoo-dev] git update hook: detecting missing Manifest DIST entries

Robin H. Johnson wrote: > 1. Script #1 (helper), that given an ebuild, spits out the filenames of the >distfiles. >- Use an explicitly specified PORTDIR for eclasses. >- Must NOT rely on the ebuild directory structure (i'd love to give >it the ebuild via stdin and tell it the p

[gentoo-dev] git update hook: detecting missing Manifest DIST entries

On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 11:20:48AM -0800, Matt Turner wrote: > >> This is happening with some frequency. Could we install a server-side > >> git hook that prevents pushes if an ebuild is added without a Manifest > >> change? It wouldn't have to verify anything more than that to catch > >> nearly al

Re: [gentoo-dev] .git folder getting mirrored to rsync mirrors

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hiya, I also experienced this (on 2a01:488:67:1000:b01c:3277:0:1). It will also prevent portage from resyncing because it assumes the portage tree is under revision control (when there's just git directories, no actual data). It looks like infra are

[gentoo-dev] .git folder getting mirrored to rsync mirrors

Looks like some part of the .git folder got mirrored to the rsync mirrors. I'm seeing this on rsync25.us.gentoo.org. Seems to bugger repoman up if you run "repoman manifest". It sees that .git folder and complains that the portage tree is not a valid git location or such. Deleting the folder f

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule (2015/Aug/08-09)

On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Any news on when git repo with historical commits will be > available? Or am I missing something and it is already online? > I have no news on anything official but I've posted one at: https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo-gitmig-20150809-dr

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule (2015/Aug/08-09)

Hi, On Thu, 2 Jul 2015 21:39:52 + Robin H. Johnson wrote: > Hi all, > > The Git migration is moving forward, and I'd like to announce a > tentative schedule for that end. > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Infrastructure/Git_migration#Status > > 2015/08/08 15:00 UTC - Freeze > 2015/08/08

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than "proj/gentoo: Initial commit" (56bd759)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 8:38 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 13 Aug 2015 17:29, Rich Freeman wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: >> > I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration >> > from CVS to git! I just committed a simple changed an

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than "proj/gentoo: Initial commit" (56bd759)

On 13 Aug 2015 17:29, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > > I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration > > from CVS to git! I just committed a simple changed and it worked great. > > > > I was curious and started explorin

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than "proj/gentoo: Initial commit" (56bd759)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 3:55 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration > from CVS to git! I just committed a simple changed and it worked great. > > I was curious and started exploring the repo a little bit, and the > initial commit s

Re: [gentoo-dev] git history older than "proj/gentoo: Initial commit" (56bd759)

On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 9:55 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote: > Is the historical data available now? Is it still work in progress? Good question! I'd all be interested in some ballpark figures about the size of such a thing. Cheers, Dirkjan

[gentoo-dev] git history older than "proj/gentoo: Initial commit" (56bd759)

I'd like to start with: kudos for the very skilfully performed migration from CVS to git! I just committed a simple changed and it worked great. I was curious and started exploring the repo a little bit, and the initial commit says: > This commit is the start of the NEW history. > Any historical

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

On 11 August 2015 at 19:44, Thomas Kahle wrote: > If somebody knows how to configure pinentry curses correctly (in > particular with respect to screen/multiplexing and long running > sessions, that would be a great help (and wiki addition). I suspect its more a bug in GPG than pinentry, as it ap

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

Hi, On 10/08/15 21:02, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: > On 08/10/2015 06:15 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn >> wrote: >>> Doug Goldstein schrieb: gpg: cancelled by user gpg: skipped "0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4": Operation cancelled gpg:

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

Monday 10 Aug 2015 12:02:25, Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote : > On 08/10/2015 06:15 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > > wrote: > >> Doug Goldstein schrieb: > >>> gpg: cancelled by user gpg: skipped "0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4": > >>> Operation canc

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/10/2015 06:15 AM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn > wrote: >> Doug Goldstein schrieb: >>> gpg: cancelled by user gpg: skipped "0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4": >>> Operation cancelled gpg: signing fai

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 3:36 AM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn wrote: > Doug Goldstein schrieb: >> gpg: cancelled by user >> gpg: skipped "0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4": Operation cancelled >> gpg: signing failed: Operation cancelled >> error: gpg failed to sign the data > > There was an IRC discussion yeste

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 10 August 2015 at 13:40, Doug Goldstein wrote: >> $ git push --signed origin master >> >> You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for >> user: "Doug Goldstein " >> 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4, created 2015-04-24 >>

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

Doug Goldstein schrieb: > gpg: cancelled by user > gpg: skipped "0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4": Operation cancelled > gpg: signing failed: Operation cancelled > error: gpg failed to sign the data There was an IRC discussion yesterday about this. Probably your pinentry tries to talk to a GUI and fails. Try:

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

On 10 August 2015 at 13:40, Doug Goldstein wrote: > $ git push --signed origin master > > You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for > user: "Doug Goldstein " > 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4, created 2015-04-24 > (subkey on main key ID 0x6C4E620431C9980D) > > gpg: cancel

Re: [gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Doug Goldstein wrote: > Hoping someone has the answer for me because I'm at a loss. I'm not > canceling the operating or hitting any key after . > > $ git push --signed origin master > > You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for > user: "Doug Goldstein " >

[gentoo-dev] git commit / push signing error

Hoping someone has the answer for me because I'm at a loss. I'm not canceling the operating or hitting any key after . $ git push --signed origin master You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "Doug Goldstein " 4096-bit RSA key, ID 0xA2BC03DC87ED1BD4, created 2015-04-24

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 21:04:35 + Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > > Out of curiosity, is it impossible to have a read only CVS server with > > > the state at the time of the freeze? > > Seconded here. Read-only CVS should not consume m

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 01:16:19PM +0300, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > Out of curiosity, is it impossible to have a read only CVS server with > > the state at the time of the freeze? > Seconded here. Read-only CVS should not consume much resources, but > will facilitate migration. Read-only access t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 08/08/2015 10:36 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 05:47:14PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:39:52PM +, Robin H. Johnson >> wrote: >>> 2015/08/08 15:00 UTC - Freeze 2015/08/08 19:00 UTC - Git >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 5:00 AM, Michael Weber wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> I'm only 90% sure that everything works, but I've spent almost the >> entire day on it, and there's more to go tomorrow. > Thanks a lot! >

Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, Aug 09, 2015 at 09:10:30AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: > We shouldn't do anything (besides adapting repoman to the $Id$ format) > without some discussion first. However... > > Do we really need to have ANY keywords in our files? Keyword > expansion was just a PITA all-around with cvs. Do

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On 8/9/15 10:31 AM, Gordon Pettey wrote: On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: Particularly, we should prepend "CATEGORY/PN: " to the first line so we can easily search git log for what happened to a package. Good format to help reading unfiltered logs, but invalid reason

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On 08/09/2015 04:31 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: > > > Particularly, we should prepend "CATEGORY/PN: " to the first line so > we can easily search git log for what happened to a package. > > > Good for

Re: [gentoo-core] [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 12:04:43 +0200 Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike) wrote: > El 09/08/15 a las 12:02, Mike Frysinger escribió: > > On 09 Aug 2015 11:31, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > >> * Michael Weber schrieb am 09.08.15 um 11:00 Uhr: > >>> On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > >>>

Re: [gentoo-core] [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

El 09/08/15 a las 12:02, Mike Frysinger escribió: > On 09 Aug 2015 11:31, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: >> * Michael Weber schrieb am 09.08.15 um 11:00 Uhr: >>> On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: I'm only 90% sure that everything works, but I've spent almost the entire day on it,

Re: [gentoo-core] [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On 09 Aug 2015 11:31, Marc Schiffbauer wrote: > * Michael Weber schrieb am 09.08.15 um 11:00 Uhr: > > On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > I'm only 90% sure that everything works, but I've spent almost the > > > entire day on it, and there's more to go tomorrow. > > Thanks a lot!

Re: [gentoo-core] [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

* Michael Weber schrieb am 09.08.15 um 11:00 Uhr: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > I'm only 90% sure that everything works, but I've spent almost the > > entire day on it, and there's more to go tomorrow. > Thanks a lot! >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On 2015-08-09 09:31, Gordon Pettey wrote: > On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile > wrote: > > > > > Particularly, we should prepend "CATEGORY/PN: " to the first line so we > > can easily search git log for what happened to a package. > > > > > Good format to help reading unfiltered l

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 7:06 AM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Particularly, we should prepend "CATEGORY/PN: " to the first line so we > can easily search git log for what happened to a package. > > Good format to help reading unfiltered logs, but invalid reasoning. 'git log portage/cat/pn' or 'git

Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > On 09 Aug 2015 14:54, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: >> Hi all! > > please don't top post > >> Current repoman complains about headers in ebuilds >> >> >>> Creating Manifest for /home/alexxy/Gentoo/gentoo/sys-cluster/open-mx >>ebuild.badheader

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On 08/09/2015 02:06 PM, Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hate to be a nag, but please read > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, commit > messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style messages going in and without > history it will be hard to figure out what ha

Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

Mike Frysinger писал 09-08-2015 15:43: On 09 Aug 2015 14:54, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: Hi all! please don't top post Current repoman complains about headers in ebuilds >>> Creating Manifest for /home/alexxy/Gentoo/gentoo/sys-cluster/open-mx ebuild.badheader 1 sys-cluster/op

Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On 09 Aug 2015 14:54, Alexey Shvetsov wrote: > Hi all! please don't top post > Current repoman complains about headers in ebuilds > > >>> Creating Manifest for /home/alexxy/Gentoo/gentoo/sys-cluster/open-mx >ebuild.badheader 1 > sys-cluster/open-mx/open-mx-1.5.4.ebuild: Malf

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

Sunday 09 Aug 2015 20:17:57, Patrick Lauer wrote : > On Sunday 09 August 2015 08:06:53 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > > > I hate to be a nag, but please read > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, commit > > messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style mess

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

"Anthony G. Basile" napisał: >Hi everyone, > >I hate to be a nag, but please read >https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, >commit >messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style messages going in and without >history it will be hard to figure out what happened just from t

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

On Sunday 09 August 2015 08:06:53 Anthony G. Basile wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I hate to be a nag, but please read > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, commit > messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style messages going in and without > history it will be hard to figure o

[gentoo-dev] Git workflow, commit messages

Hi everyone, I hate to be a nag, but please read https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_git_workflow. In particular, commit messages. I'm seeing lots of cvs style messages going in and without history it will be hard to figure out what happened just from the message. Particularly, we should p

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

Hi all! Current repoman complains about headers in ebuilds Creating Manifest for /home/alexxy/Gentoo/gentoo/sys-cluster/open-mx ebuild.badheader 1 sys-cluster/open-mx/open-mx-1.5.4.ebuild: Malformed CVS Header on line: 3 So may be its better to drop $Id: $ completely? Rob

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule (2015/Aug/08-09)

08.08.2015 20:47, Robin H. Johnson пишет: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:39:52PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> 2015/08/08 15:00 UTC - Freeze >> 2015/08/08 19:00 UTC - Git commits open for developers >> 2015/08/09 01:00 UTC - Rsync live again (with lagged changelog) >> 2015/08/11 - His

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/09/2015 07:36 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > I'm only 90% sure that everything works, but I've spent almost the > entire day on it, and there's more to go tomorrow. Thanks a lot! use case: my cvs tree had uncommitted ebuild work (yes, you caug

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

Hi, Great work! Semi-related question though... Dnia 2015-08-09, o godz. 05:36:16 "Robin H. Johnson" napisał(a): > On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 05:47:14PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > [...] > Quick instructions: > Set PORTAGE_GPG_KEY="0xLONG-GPG-KEY" in your make.conf > $ git config user.signing

[gentoo-dev] Git Migration: go-live!

On Sat, Aug 08, 2015 at 05:47:14PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:39:52PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > 2015/08/08 15:00 UTC - Freeze > > 2015/08/08 19:00 UTC - Git commits open for developers This is going live in a few minutes. There was a lot of delays and snags

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule (2015/Aug/08-09)

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 09:39:52PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > 2015/08/08 15:00 UTC - Freeze > 2015/08/08 19:00 UTC - Git commits open for developers > 2015/08/09 01:00 UTC - Rsync live again (with lagged changelog) > 2015/08/11 - History repo available to graft > 2015/08/12

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:50:43 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rich Freeman > wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec > > wrote: > >> > >> I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, > >> the strongly recommended commit signing

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 08:36:25 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec > wrote: > > > > I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, > > the strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. > > > > So, we are at 50 devs with valid

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> >> I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the >> strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. >> >> So, we are at 50 devs with valid gpg keys n

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On 17 July 2015 at 15:36, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: >> >> I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the >> strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. >> >> So, we are at 50 devs with valid gpg keys now, wit

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:42 AM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > I don't know tbh, most are already signed, with the git migration, the > strongly recommended commit signing will become MANDATORY. > > So, we are at 50 devs with valid gpg keys now, with 200 more gpg keys > listed in LDAP that fail to meet

Re: Verification of installed packages (was Re: OpenPGP verification (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests))

On 17 July 2015 at 22:34, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > 2. Add an optional feature to emerge (or even to PMS?) allowing user > to provide a usable GPG key for signing packages CONTENTS files > after its generation. In order for such key to be usable during > emerge run, gpg-agent should be used; alter

Verification of installed packages (was Re: OpenPGP verification (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests))

Hi, On Fri, 17 Jul 2015 10:18:14 +0200 Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging > > that a package has been looked over, and that developer has stated > > that they approve of the existing state. I'm not sure if others > > agree with that

Re: OpenPGP verification (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/17/2015 11:48 AM, hasufell wrote: > On 07/17/2015 10:18 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: >> On 07/17/2015 03:13 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: >> >>> Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of >>> acknowledging that a package has been looked o

Re: OpenPGP verification (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests)

On 07/17/2015 10:18 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > On 07/17/2015 03:13 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: > >> Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging >> that a package has been looked over, and that developer has stated >> that they approve of the existing state. I'm not sure if

OpenPGP verification (was Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 07/17/2015 03:13 AM, NP-Hardass wrote: > Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging > that a package has been looked over, and that developer has stated > that they approve of the existing state. I'm not sure if others > a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 23:06:03 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 07/16/2015 09:25 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:13:09 -0400 NP-Hardass > > wrote: > > > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/16/2015 09:25 PM, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 17 July 2015 at 13:13, NP-Hardass > wrote: >> Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging >> that a package has been looked over, and that developer has >> stated that they appro

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 07/16/2015 09:25 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote: > On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:13:09 -0400 NP-Hardass > wrote: > >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 > >> Not sure if this has been covered in some of the rather long >> chains of late, but I wa

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 21:13:09 -0400 NP-Hardass wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > Not sure if this has been covered in some of the rather long chains of > late, but I was thinking about GPG signing, and how the proposed

Re: [gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

On 17 July 2015 at 13:13, NP-Hardass wrote: > Additionally, I feel that a signature is a means of acknowledging that > a package has been looked over, and that developer has stated that > they approve of the existing state That much is somewhat implied by a developer owning a commit. Because in

[gentoo-dev] Git, GPG Signing, and Manifests

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Not sure if this has been covered in some of the rather long chains of late, but I was thinking about GPG signing, and how the proposed workflow requires every developer to sign their commits. Currently, it's advised that every manifest be signed.

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi! On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for > > cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on >=other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The > > latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:56 PM, hasufell wrote: > > I'm not sure if you followed my argumentation. I basically said that it > is unrealistic to enforce a review-only workflow and that it should/can > start within gentoo-internal projects. You are just repeating what I > already said. > > My point

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 07/09/2015 01:47 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote: >> >> The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make >> community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code >> review) then you solve several problems at once, becaus

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, 09 Jul 2015 00:11:34 -0500 Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > The only fear I have about CI, is that we turn into every other distro > out there where "it builds, ship it!" This would be an improvement over the current situation. -- Ciaran McCreesh signature.asc Description: PGP signature

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> > > So basically Gentoo Sunrise? :) > >> In any case, to some extent the review workflow already exists on the >> proxy maintainer project. There is no limit to the number of packag

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 07/09/2015 10:45 AM, Alec Warner wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman mailto:ri...@gentoo.org>> wrote: On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell mailto:hasuf...@gentoo.org>> wrote: > > The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make > commu

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 4:47 AM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote: > > > > The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make > > community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code > > review) then you solve several problems a

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:51 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > What I meant is when I get a stabilization bug for > cat-egory/foo-1.2.3 which depends on >=other-cat/bar-1.0.5. The > latter is amd64 but not alpha or ~alpha. And it, in turn, has yet > more deps in the same vein. Now I have several opt

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi! On Thu, 09 Jul 2015, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > The truly arch-dependent bugs are what wastes my time: > > > > For example: > > > > - dependencies not being keyworded for arch or ~arch but only > > amd64/~amd64 > > - dependen

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >> I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting >> the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, > > I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right > here and now. I

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Rich Freeman wrote: > I suspect that trying to force it would basically end up putting > the entire distro on hold until most of the current devs quit, I think you're right. I also think those developers should quit right here and now. I don't think they will. //Peter

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 5:31 AM, hasufell wrote: > > The quality problem is that we have too many developers. If you make > community contributions easier, sane and more reliable (due to code > review) then you solve several problems at once, because you need _less_ > developers. Are you aware that

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 07/09/2015 09:19 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote: >> On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: >>> On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient. >>> >>> This is

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:20:14 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 07/05/2015 08:05 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > > On Sat, 4 Jul 2015 20:20:23 +0200 Peter Stuge wrote: > >> It's important that the review flow is well-understood and efficient. > > > > This is impossible in our case due to the lack of manpowe

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 10:11 PM, Steev Klimaszewski wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200 > > > Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > > > In essence, assuming we can "just scal

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Wed, 2015-07-08 at 21:11 +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200 > > Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > > In essence, assuming we can "just scale" to make CI work is > > > ignoring the matter of the slower archs. And

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 07/08/2015 09:14 PM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > I explicitly point out that amd64 > is welcome to do whatever they want regarding CI, but that I > suspect that the rift between it and the "lesser" architectures > will become wider. > That is technically correct, but it's not really an argume

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi! On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Alec Warner wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Tobias Klausmann > wrote: > > > tl;dr: Continuous Integration is a neat idea if you have the > > Hardware. The off-mainstream arch teams don't. > > Clearly because we cannot be perfect, we should not even try! > Re

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi! On Wed, 08 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200 > Tobias Klausmann wrote: > > In essence, assuming we can "just scale" to make CI work is > > ignoring the matter of the slower archs. And I suspect the "it > > works on amd64, fuck everyone else" is not somethin

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 11:07 AM, Tobias Klausmann wrote: > Hi! > > This got a bit rambly, sorry 'bout that. > > tl;dr: Continuous Integration is a neat idea if you have the > Hardware. The off-mainstream arch teams don't. > Clearly because we cannot be perfect, we should not even try! Realistica

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 20:07:34 +0200 Tobias Klausmann wrote: > In essence, assuming we can "just scale" to make CI work is > ignoring the matter of the slower archs. And I suspect the "it > works on amd64, fuck everyone else" is not something we want to > pick as a motto. "It works on amd64 on a cle

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi! This got a bit rambly, sorry 'bout that. tl;dr: Continuous Integration is a neat idea if you have the Hardware. The off-mainstream arch teams don't. On Tue, 07 Jul 2015, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:04:47 +0800 > Patrick Lauer wrote: > > I'll laugh about it next time I

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Tue, 07 Jul 2015 08:04:47 +0800 Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 07/07/15 01:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:04:35 -0400 > > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> I would love my commits to be reviewed, but I usually don't feel > >> like reviewing anyone else's. That's... not uncommon. >

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

Hi, On Tue, 7 Jul 2015 16:16:02 +1200 Kent Fredric wrote: > It would be really nice if we could define some sort of variable in > the ebuild itself with a relative cost metric for the ebuilds install > time. It wouldn't need to be precise, just ballpark figures so the > testing boxes can go "Ok, a

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 7 July 2015 at 12:04, Patrick Lauer wrote: > > So thanks for your intentional comedy, but let's be serious here. It would be really nice if we could define some sort of variable in the ebuild itself with a relative cost metric for the ebuilds install time. It wouldn't need to be precise, just

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On 07/07/15 01:27, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:04:35 -0400 > Michael Orlitzky wrote: >> I would love my commits to be reviewed, but I usually don't feel like >> reviewing anyone else's. That's... not uncommon. > > Well, you could at least get your commits reviewed by an automa

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Peter Stuge wrote: > Alec Warner wrote: > > Its difficult to make a large change like "all commits require review", > > particularly for long-time contributors who are expecting to move > quickly. > > I think it's a character flaw (maybe hubris due to lack of exper

Re: Code Review Systems Was: [gentoo-dev] Git Migration: launch plan & schedule

On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 19:34:05 +0200 hasufell wrote: > On 07/06/2015 07:27 PM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Jul 2015 13:04:35 -0400 > > Michael Orlitzky wrote: > >> I would love my commits to be reviewed, but I usually don't feel > >> like reviewing anyone else's. That's... not uncommon. >

  1   2   3   4   >