[gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 254 bytes --]

I'm just curious, is there a reason why the gentoo module is not
monitored by CIA-2 and shown in #gentoo-commits?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 632 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'm just curious, is there a reason why the gentoo module is not
> monitored by CIA-2 and shown in #gentoo-commits?


I checked and we still sending the .xml mails for gentoo-x86 and
gentoo-src modules to the CIA upon commits as can be seen here
http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/wolf31o2
So everything still seems correct on our end.

You might want to ask scanline on freenode on why the bot is not playing
along. Make sure it's not +q on that chan either.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[Ned Ludd]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'm just curious, is there a reason why the gentoo module is not
> > monitored by CIA-2 and shown in #gentoo-commits?
> 
> 
> I checked and we still sending the .xml mails for gentoo-x86 and
> gentoo-src modules to the CIA upon commits as can be seen here
> http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/wolf31o2
> So everything still seems correct on our end.
> 
> You might want to ask scanline on freenode on why the bot is not playing
> along. Make sure it's not +q on that chan either.

Correction. Sorry I failed to notice you were explicitly asking about
the 'gentoo' module. (solar is doing to many things at once and trying
to help alot of people)  

Thanks luke-jr for pointing this out to me.

To answer your question correctly this time. 
The reason is twofold
1) simply nobody has ever requested it before.
2) I have a few minor security concerns about gentoo/admin

If requested I don't see any problem with enabling it on some of the
other subdirs within the 'gentoo' module.
Just file me a bug with what you want enabled.

-- 
Ned Ludd <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo (hardened,security,infrastructure,embedded,toolchain) Developer

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1433 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 18:17, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> > On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > I'm just curious, is there a reason why the gentoo module is not
> > > monitored by CIA-2 and shown in #gentoo-commits?
> > 
> > 
> > I checked and we still sending the .xml mails for gentoo-x86 and
> > gentoo-src modules to the CIA upon commits as can be seen here
> > http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/wolf31o2
> > So everything still seems correct on our end.
> > 
> > You might want to ask scanline on freenode on why the bot is not playing
> > along. Make sure it's not +q on that chan either.
> 
> Correction. Sorry I failed to notice you were explicitly asking about
> the 'gentoo' module. (solar is doing to many things at once and trying
> to help alot of people)  
> 
> Thanks luke-jr for pointing this out to me.

=]

> To answer your question correctly this time. 
> The reason is twofold
> 1) simply nobody has ever requested it before.
> 2) I have a few minor security concerns about gentoo/admin
> 
> If requested I don't see any problem with enabling it on some of the
> other subdirs within the 'gentoo' module.
> Just file me a bug with what you want enabled.

Check out bug #64909, then...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] CIA-2 and "gentoo" CVS module

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 956 bytes --]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:50, Ned Ludd wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 17:08, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'm just curious, is there a reason why the gentoo module is not
> > monitored by CIA-2 and shown in #gentoo-commits?
> 
> 
> I checked and we still sending the .xml mails for gentoo-x86 and
> gentoo-src modules to the CIA upon commits as can be seen here
> http://cia.navi.cx/stats/author/wolf31o2
> So everything still seems correct on our end.

...except I asked about "gentoo", not "gentoo-src" or "gentoo-x86"...
*grin*

From what I am told, gentoo-src is deprecated and we should be using
gentoo/src instead.

> You might want to ask scanline on freenode on why the bot is not playing
> along. Make sure it's not +q on that chan either.

The bot seems to be doing exactly as it is told.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-src vs gentoo/src

[Nicholas Jones]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1147 bytes --]

> From what I am told, gentoo-src is deprecated and we should be using
> gentoo/src instead.

No, not really. That was a push by ex-devs (maybe others) a long
time ago, and the work was never actually accomplished. Except for
a limited number of migrations, nothing ever really became of it
early on. Looks like we have a fair number of organized uses in it
now.

We do have 4 repos though... Which developed all around the time
that the "gentoo" repo came into being.

gentoo
gentoo-x86
gentoo-src
gentoo-projects

Gentoo-projects was created for a reason unknown to me when I
asked, way back when. Looks like the TLPs took refuge there,
which is how it looks like it should be.

Gentoo-src is still used by portage, baselayout, releng, and
has a number of older projects that could probably be useful
if revivied.

A major issue with moving gentoo-src is that the history would
be lost. (At least, I'm fairly certain it would be, correct me.)
That would be very unpleasant for portage, as I do use it on
occasion to verify changes and review committers. I imagine it'd
be nice to keep the commit logs and nametags for a long long
while.

--NJ



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] gentoo-src vs gentoo/src

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2189 bytes --]

On Wed, 2004-09-22 at 18:50, Nicholas Jones wrote:
> > From what I am told, gentoo-src is deprecated and we should be using
> > gentoo/src instead.
> 
> No, not really. That was a push by ex-devs (maybe others) a long
> time ago, and the work was never actually accomplished. Except for
> a limited number of migrations, nothing ever really became of it
> early on. Looks like we have a fair number of organized uses in it
> now.

Well, now you tell me after I went and moved the entire
gentoo-src/releng folder which I had just created to gentoo/src...
*grin*

> We do have 4 repos though... Which developed all around the time
> that the "gentoo" repo came into being.
> 
> gentoo
> gentoo-x86

Too bad we can't rename this one... but that's another story.

> gentoo-src
> gentoo-projects

I didn't even know this one existed until now.  It doesn't look to be
used very heavily.

> Gentoo-projects was created for a reason unknown to me when I
> asked, way back when. Looks like the TLPs took refuge there,
> which is how it looks like it should be.
> 
> Gentoo-src is still used by portage, baselayout, releng, and
> has a number of older projects that could probably be useful
> if revivied.

Well, releng isn't using gentoo-src.  We're using gentoo/src, at least
for catalyst and now the releng folder, which is where I've added the
kernel config files and spec files we will be using for releases.

> A major issue with moving gentoo-src is that the history would
> be lost. (At least, I'm fairly certain it would be, correct me.)
> That would be very unpleasant for portage, as I do use it on
> occasion to verify changes and review committers. I imagine it'd
> be nice to keep the commit logs and nametags for a long long
> while.

I can definitely see why we wouldn't want to move portage itself, being
our bread and butter.  I just wish I had known that my information was
erroneous before I took the hour or two today to move the releng folder
from gentoo-src to gentoo/src.

Oh well...

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Operations/QA Manager
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

Is your power animal a penguin?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]