[gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Aaron Walker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way to provide
both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them sync'd somehow.

Although this was not the intention of my glep, it would be nice to get this
implemented, as it means all developers of a certain project would not be
forced to use one over the other.

Unfortunately, I have almost zero experience with repository administration
(CVS or Subversion), so I'm writing this with hopes that some of you guys have
some ideas.

The only idea I've had is to maybe setup post-commit hooks for both that commit
what was just committed to the other (cvs post-commit commits the stuff to svn
and vice versa).  Is this possible?

Cheers

[1] http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/glep/glep-0036.html
- --
Bork Bork Bork!

Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCWVbRC3poscuANHARAvxuAJoDb2zpGYUxnPqYrT0gIjrNOlr1sACgrC9V
rrLF/g1JKTsV7kCsJcj6J0I=
=hpQB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 494 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
| to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them
| sync'd somehow.

Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
restrictions of CVS.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 629 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
> | to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them
> | sync'd somehow.
> 
> Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
> restrictions of CVS.
> 
We have to do that anyway until cvs is phased out.

If you can think of a full battle plan for migrating everything at once
that even includes tools etc, I'll be among the first to help getting it
implemented. 



[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 923 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:27:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
| > wrote:
| > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a
| > | way to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep
| > | them sync'd somehow.
| > 
| > Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
| > restrictions of CVS.
|
| We have to do that anyway until cvs is phased out.

Eh? Er, no. We're already using SVN for a whole load of Gentoo projects,
but we're currently hosting them off berlios rather than official Gentoo
infrastructure. That's the purpose of this GLEP.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1182 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:32 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:27:51 +0200 Patrick Lauer <patrick@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
> | >
> | > wrote:
> | > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a
> | > | way to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep
> | > | them sync'd somehow.
> | >
> | > Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
> | > restrictions of CVS.
> |
> | We have to do that anyway until cvs is phased out.
>
> Eh? Er, no. We're already using SVN for a whole load of Gentoo projects,
> but we're currently hosting them off berlios rather than official Gentoo
> infrastructure. That's the purpose of this GLEP.

I see, there's a greater demand on this subject than I even thought 
about. I even expected that you'll all kill me for the whols SVN 
alternative thoughts I'm raising.

Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 19:45:33 up 18 days,  8:51,  0 users,  load average: 0.92, 0.73, 0.60

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1860 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:27 pm, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 18:12 +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:39:45 -0400 Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way
> > | to provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them
> > | sync'd somehow.
> >
> > Please don't. This would mean we'd have to stick with all of the
> > restrictions of CVS.

This is a technical no-go (at least a hell) to realize. So, forget about a 
(realtime) synchronized cvs<->svn portage tree and alike.

> We have to do that anyway until cvs is phased out.

the sooner the better ^o^

> If you can think of a full battle plan for migrating everything at once
> that even includes tools etc, I'll be among the first to help getting it
> implemented.

Well, a full battle won't go that easy, however:

We're already working on a subversion migration into 
official gentoo. So, please be patient.

We've been talking about this off-list for a long time 
now - not just talking but also doing test conversions, 
script fixing and alike. 
We also had a little meeting right yesterday about an 
open issues list I figured out.

So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on 
this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
we're offering already existing svn repositories to be 
merged into the gentoo svn repository, and we're offering 
already existing sub-projects' CVS directories to be converted 
on-demand. so, as soon as we're about to announce this service, 
just drop us a note.

ka0ttic, you maybe overran me with your mail :-)

So far,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 19:33:55 up 18 days,  8:40,  0 users,  load average: 0.63, 0.55, 0.54

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 572 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:19 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on 
| this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
| we're offering already existing svn repositories to be 
| merged into the gentoo svn repository

Hrm, please tell me you're planning one svn repo per 'project', not one
huge big Gentoo svn repo.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1233 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 7:53 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 19:44:19 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | So, sooner or shorter, we're announcing here some news on
> | this subject (oops, did I already by this?, so, I can say,
> | we're offering already existing svn repositories to be
> | merged into the gentoo svn repository
>
> Hrm, please tell me you're planning one svn repo per 'project', not one
> huge big Gentoo svn repo.

Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a single 
repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is about to convert 
everything into a single svn repos as well (for other reasons).
For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense (administrative) to keep 
everything into a single repository as well. However, providing each sub 
project with its own repository will work around the single-point-of-failure 
effect (in worst case) so it's likely to happen this way.

However, it's not likely to happen today or tomorrow, like ramereth said.

be patient ;)
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 20:17:34 up 18 days,  9:23,  0 users,  load average: 0.76, 0.80, 0.72

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1176 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
| single  repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
| about to convert  everything into a single svn repos as well (for
| other reasons). For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense
| (administrative) to keep  everything into a single repository as well.
| However, providing each sub  project with its own repository will work
| around the single-point-of-failure  effect (in worst case) so it's
| likely to happen this way.

Nothing to do with single points of failure. SVN uses transactions and
changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on a
per project basis. Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN
revision IDs are actually meaningful, and you don't want to lock every
single Gentoo project whilst one person on a slow dialup connection does
a single transaction to a single project.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2088 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 8:34 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 20:27:03 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | Both have pros and cons. Well, the ASF has everyting converted into a
> | single  repository and they seem to be just lucky with it. KDE is
> | about to convert  everything into a single svn repos as well (for
> | other reasons). For the Gentoo projects, it might make sense
> | (administrative) to keep  everything into a single repository as well.
> | However, providing each sub  project with its own repository will work
> | around the single-point-of-failure  effect (in worst case) so it's
> | likely to happen this way.
>
> Nothing to do with single points of failure. 

maybe wrong said. I mean, when you break the repos, you break 
everything and the whole development process halts. when you 
break a little repos if a single dev group, you break just 
this one (to be fixed though) and the others will continue w/o
any problems.

> SVN uses transactions and 
> changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on a
> per project basis. 

reason?

> Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN 
> revision IDs are actually meaningful, 

SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a given 
time, nothing more or less.

> and you don't want to lock every 
> single Gentoo project whilst one person on a slow dialup connection does
> a single transaction to a single project.

as confirmed by svn devs and others, the transaction data is first uploaded to 
the server (with whatever speed the client has) and then performed 
server-side. Though, the time of locking the database depends on the CPU 
load, and not the client's [dialup] speed.

Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all their 
public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any problems.

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 23:44:22 up 18 days, 12:50,  2 users,  load average: 0.51, 0.64, 0.72

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1046 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| > SVN uses transactions and 
| > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on
| > a per project basis. 
| 
| reason?

Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
having to arse around with path prefixes.

| > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN 
| > revision IDs are actually meaningful, 
| 
| SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a
| given  time, nothing more or less.

Not repo IDs. Revision IDs.

| Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all
| their  public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any
| problems.

So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo would
be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1287 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | > SVN uses transactions and
> | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on
> | > a per project basis.
> |
> | reason?
>
> Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
> having to arse around with path prefixes.

Do you have to? If so, why?

> | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN
> | > revision IDs are actually meaningful,
> |
> | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a
> | given  time, nothing more or less.
>
> Not repo IDs. Revision IDs.

That's the one I meant. yeah.

> | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all
> | their  public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any
> | problems.
>
> So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo would
> be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better.

Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent argument on 
why the ASF made a mistake here.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 22:20:40 up 19 days, 11:27,  4 users,  load average: 1.33, 1.03, 0.88

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2142 bytes --]

On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:23:29 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart
| > <trapni@gentoo.org>
| > wrote:
| > | > SVN uses transactions and
| > | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're
| > | > done on a per project basis.
| > |
| > | reason?
| >
| > Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
| > having to arse around with path prefixes.
| 
| Do you have to? If so, why?

Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these version
control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a hell of a
lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me everything that
changed in the foo project between three days ago and today" rather than
having to worry about adding in extra selections to pick a project path.

| > | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN
| > | > revision IDs are actually meaningful,
| > |
| > | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at
| > | a given  time, nothing more or less.
| >
| > Not repo IDs. Revision IDs.
| 
| That's the one I meant. yeah.

And, said revision IDs are useful for keeping track of what's changed.
Or, at least, they are if you know that an update of 3 in the revision
number is equivalent to three changesets, which you don't if you use
multiple projects per repo.

| > | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all
| > | their  public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any
| > | problems.
| >
| > So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo
| > would be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better.
| 
| Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent
| argument on  why the ASF made a mistake here.

One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2777 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2005 10:42 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:23:29 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart
> | > <trapni@gentoo.org>
> | >
> | > wrote:
> | > | > SVN uses transactions and
> | > | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're
> | > | > done on a per project basis.
> | > |
> | > | reason?
> | >
> | > Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without
> | > having to arse around with path prefixes.
> |
> | Do you have to? If so, why?
>
> Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these version
> control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a hell of a
> lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me everything that
> changed in the foo project between three days ago and today" rather than
> having to worry about adding in extra selections to pick a project path.

yeah ;)

> | > | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN
> | > | > revision IDs are actually meaningful,
> | > |
> | > | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at
> | > | a given  time, nothing more or less.
> | >
> | > Not repo IDs. Revision IDs.
> |
> | That's the one I meant. yeah.
>
> And, said revision IDs are useful for keeping track of what's changed.
> Or, at least, they are if you know that an update of 3 in the revision
> number is equivalent to three changesets, which you don't if you use
> multiple projects per repo.

This eases the understanding of course. However, sometimes moving file X from 
project foo to bar makes sense. I do not say that *you* will be in such 
situation, but I know I already went in. And besides, I'm (not related to 
gentoo) keeping multiple repositories for different projects and (where it 
makes sense) project categories.

> | > | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all
> | > | their  public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any
> | > | problems.
> | >
> | > So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo
> | > would be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better.
> |
> | Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent
> | argument on  why the ASF made a mistake here.
>
> One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple.

Might be personal taste, I can't feel here with you, but this is *all* not 
part of GLEP36. So, let's break here the loop ;)

Regards,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 23:25:53 up 19 days, 12:32,  4 users,  load average: 0.94, 0.71, 0.65

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1126 bytes --]

On Monday 11 April 2005 22:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these version
> control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a hell of a
> lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me everything that
> changed in the foo project between three days ago and today" rather than
> having to worry about adding in extra selections to pick a project path.

You need to do this anyway. Whether it's a path inside the repository or on 
the webserver doesn't matter. It's like https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA 
where /gentoo is the name of the repos or https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA 
where /gentoo is a superdirectory of all project repositories that are now 
housed in the gentoo cvs repository. In either case /gentoo could be removed.

> One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple.

With one exception, that is, sharing and merging within a repository is a lot 
easier than between two separate repositories.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1523 bytes --]

On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:50:36 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| On Monday 11 April 2005 22:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these
| > version control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a
| > hell of a lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me
| > everything that changed in the foo project between three days ago
| > and today" rather than having to worry about adding in extra
| > selections to pick a project path.
| 
| You need to do this anyway. Whether it's a path inside the repository
| or on  the webserver doesn't matter. It's like
| https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA  where /gentoo is the name of the
| repos or https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA  where /gentoo is a
| superdirectory of all project repositories that are now  housed in the
| gentoo cvs repository. In either case /gentoo could be removed.

No, with certain operations you need to start giving entire paths if and
only if you're not operating on the repo as a whole.

| > One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple.
| 
| With one exception, that is, sharing and merging within a repository
| is a lot  easier than between two separate repositories.

Which is an extremely rare task compared to doing things like diffs and
branch merges...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2305 bytes --]

On Tuesday 12 April 2005 8:57 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 20:50:36 +0200 Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org>
>
> wrote:
> | On Monday 11 April 2005 22:42, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | > Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these
> | > version control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a
> | > hell of a lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me
> | > everything that changed in the foo project between three days ago
> | > and today" rather than having to worry about adding in extra
> | > selections to pick a project path.
> |
> | You need to do this anyway. Whether it's a path inside the repository
> | or on  the webserver doesn't matter. It's like
> | https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA  where /gentoo is the name of the
> | repos or https://svn.gentoo.org/gentoo/projA  where /gentoo is a
> | superdirectory of all project repositories that are now  housed in the
> | gentoo cvs repository. In either case /gentoo could be removed.
>
> No, with certain operations you need to start giving entire paths if and
> only if you're not operating on the repo as a whole.

If you loose when using svn as client, then you might wanna have a 
look at svk which already has star-merge capabilities. Or just 
don't merg until svn 1.3 is out (which will have it)

> | > One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple.
> |
> | With one exception, that is, sharing and merging within a repository
> | is a lot  easier than between two separate repositories.
>
> Which is an extremely rare task compared to doing things like diffs and
> branch merges...

http://rt.openfoundry.org/Foundry/Project/Download/Attachment/28786/20705/SVK-0.991.tar.gz
(or wait for the ebuild)

play a bit around, feel it, and report your experiences. when having problems 
(like you seem to *always* complain) report in *detail*.

Finally, just don't use svn if you feel that uncomfortable with it. No one 
said that cvs will go away. I'm tired of reading your 'svn is hard to merge 
because it *is* hard to merge' posts :(

Sorry, but this is how it comes over.
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 03:28:51 up 20 days, 16:35,  0 users,  load average: 0.40, 0.27, 0.21

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 789 bytes --]

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:33:46 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Finally, just don't use svn if you feel that uncomfortable with it. No
| one  said that cvs will go away. I'm tired of reading your 'svn is
| hard to merge  because it *is* hard to merge' posts :(

Eh? Dude, I'm one of the people that's been asking for SVN from the
beginning. SVN is considerably easier to merge than CVS -- however, it's
a pain in the ass if you're using multiple projects per repo because
then you *have* to give it full paths.

Really, I think you should reread the entire thread if you think I'm
against SVN.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Aaron Walker]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:33:46 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> | Finally, just don't use svn if you feel that uncomfortable with it. No
> | one  said that cvs will go away. I'm tired of reading your 'svn is
> | hard to merge  because it *is* hard to merge' posts :(
> 
> Eh? Dude, I'm one of the people that's been asking for SVN from the
> beginning. SVN is considerably easier to merge than CVS -- however, it's
> a pain in the ass if you're using multiple projects per repo because
> then you *have* to give it full paths.
> 
> Really, I think you should reread the entire thread if you think I'm
> against SVN.
> 

Yeah actually the glep wouldnt exist at all w/o Ciaran pawning it off on me :)

- --
Qooesshun oothureety.
Bork Bork Bork!

Aaron Walker <ka0ttic@gentoo.org>
[ BSD | cron | forensics | shell-tools | commonbox | netmon | vim | web-apps ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCXRi9C3poscuANHARAqH1AJ9TcnyHcH2AaadwWn9mxAvis2i2GQCgw4QI
Tg1kMLEFqPlrCmPlPlqFgQ4=
=GbRS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1146 bytes --]

On Wednesday 13 April 2005 3:03 pm, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 03:33:46 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@gentoo.org>
> >
> > wrote:
> > | Finally, just don't use svn if you feel that uncomfortable with it. No
> > | one  said that cvs will go away. I'm tired of reading your 'svn is
> > | hard to merge  because it *is* hard to merge' posts :(
> >
> > Eh? Dude, I'm one of the people that's been asking for SVN from the
> > beginning. SVN is considerably easier to merge than CVS -- however, it's
> > a pain in the ass if you're using multiple projects per repo because
> > then you *have* to give it full paths.
> >
> > Really, I think you should reread the entire thread if you think I'm
> > against SVN.
>
> Yeah actually the glep wouldnt exist at all w/o Ciaran pawning it off on me
> :)

I take it back. Really I just wanted to stop that 'I like it better that way' 
discussion. But yet, I'm responding again. However, I take it back, sorry 
though.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 16:45:13 up 21 days,  5:51,  0 users,  load average: 0.42, 0.31, 0.26

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1608 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 12:39 -0400, Aaron Walker wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way to provide
> both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them sync'd somehow.
> 
> Although this was not the intention of my glep, it would be nice to get this
> implemented, as it means all developers of a certain project would not be
> forced to use one over the other.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have almost zero experience with repository administration
> (CVS or Subversion), so I'm writing this with hopes that some of you guys have
> some ideas.
> 
> The only idea I've had is to maybe setup post-commit hooks for both that commit
> what was just committed to the other (cvs post-commit commits the stuff to svn
> and vice versa).  Is this possible?
> 
> Cheers

Before everyone starts getting all antsy about getting svn for gentoo
projects, its in the works. I'm trying to get the current CVS admins
around so we can start with that process. Robbat2 seems to be busy for
the next few weeks, so I'll have to rely on Pylon to help with this. So
please just be patient and we'll get this rolling soon. Bugging me or
other people about will not get you anywhere :P

We'll let you all know when its been implemented and ready for
consumption.

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 914 bytes --]

On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 13:14:36 -0500 Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| Before everyone starts getting all antsy about getting svn for gentoo
| projects, its in the works. I'm trying to get the current CVS admins
| around so we can start with that process. Robbat2 seems to be busy for
| the next few weeks, so I'll have to rely on Pylon to help with this.
| So please just be patient and we'll get this rolling soon. Bugging me
| or other people about will not get you anywhere :P
| 
| We'll let you all know when its been implemented and ready for
| consumption.

The only reason there's a GLEP at all is because klieber insisted upon
one when I asked him (oh, and because ka0ttic kindly volunteered to
actually write it).

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (Vim, Fluxbox, shell tools)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Daniel Drake]

Lance Albertson wrote:
> Before everyone starts getting all antsy about getting svn for gentoo
> projects, its in the works. I'm trying to get the current CVS admins
> around so we can start with that process. Robbat2 seems to be busy for
> the next few weeks, so I'll have to rely on Pylon to help with this. So
> please just be patient and we'll get this rolling soon. Bugging me or
> other people about will not get you anywhere :P

I doubt this is the right place to ask, but I got no reply from the trustees,
so...

A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo CVS
because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment form: I
have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo cvs will be
copyrighted to Gentoo. That obviously isn't the case for kernel patches that I
didn't write.

We moved the kernel patches into a bitkeeper repo, and they've been there for
a while. However, this might be clashing with the social contract, and
costless BK is going away, so its time to move again. I'd love to host these
in a Gentoo repo, preferably SVN, but would need to get that agreement revoked
for me and the other kernel developers. Who do I need to speak to?

Thanks,
Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Greg KH]

On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 
> A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo CVS
> because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment form: I
> have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo cvs will be
> copyrighted to Gentoo. That obviously isn't the case for kernel patches that I
> didn't write.
> 
> We moved the kernel patches into a bitkeeper repo, and they've been there for
> a while. However, this might be clashing with the social contract, and
> costless BK is going away, so its time to move again. I'd love to host these
> in a Gentoo repo, preferably SVN, but would need to get that agreement revoked
> for me and the other kernel developers. Who do I need to speak to?

Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week.  I can get
the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.)  But we need to get
moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, and the gentoo server is
not a current solution :(

thanks,

greg k-h
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Christian Parpart]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1540 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 11:35 pm, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 10:30:29PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> > A while back, we had to move the gentoo kernel patches out of the Gentoo
> > CVS because we realised it conflicted with the old copyright assignment
> > form: I have signed an agreement saying that everything I put in gentoo
> > cvs will be copyrighted to Gentoo. That obviously isn't the case for
> > kernel patches that I didn't write.
> >
> > We moved the kernel patches into a bitkeeper repo, and they've been there
> > for a while. However, this might be clashing with the social contract,
> > and costless BK is going away, so its time to move again. I'd love to
> > host these in a Gentoo repo, preferably SVN, but would need to get that
> > agreement revoked for me and the other kernel developers. Who do I need
> > to speak to?
>
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week.  I can get
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.)  But we need to get
> moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, 

> and the gentoo server is 
> not a current solution :(

could you be please more specific? I mean. why isn't it a current solution? 
because SVN isn't right in place or because of the copyright problems still 
around or ...?

thanks,
Christian Parpart.

-- 
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt
 23:42:51 up 18 days, 12:49,  2 users,  load average: 0.44, 0.69, 0.75

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Daniel Drake]

Christian Parpart wrote:
> could you be please more specific? I mean. why isn't it a current solution? 
> because SVN isn't right in place or because of the copyright problems still 
> around or ...?

He means the copyright issues. I believe that Greg also signed the form, and
he was the one who brought up the issue in the first place.

Daniel
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Patrick Lauer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 583 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week.  I can get
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.)  But we need to get
> moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, and the gentoo server is
> not a current solution :(

It shouldn't be too hard to find another server.
If the Gentoo infrastructure is (legally) problematic, ping me, I don't
mind hosting another few bits on gentooexperimental.org

Have fun,
Patrick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Lance Albertson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1003 bytes --]

On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 23:48 +0200, Patrick Lauer wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-04-10 at 14:35 -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week.  I can get
> > the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> > we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.)  But we need to get
> > moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, and the gentoo server is
> > not a current solution :(
> 
> It shouldn't be too hard to find another server.
> If the Gentoo infrastructure is (legally) problematic, ping me, I don't
> mind hosting another few bits on gentooexperimental.org

Its just copyright issues that I'm sure we could work around. Besides,
you can't even handle a little /.'ing ;)

-- 
Lance Albertson <ramereth@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Infrastructure | Operations Manager

---
GPG Public Key:  <http://www.ramereth.net/lance.asc>
Key fingerprint: 0423 92F3 544A 1282 5AB1  4D07 416F A15D 27F4 B742

ramereth/irc.freenode.net

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Donnie Berkholz]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Greg KH wrote:
> Thanks for bringing this up, I was going to do so this week.  I can get
> the cvs data out of the bk tree, if we want to move it anywhere else, so
> we will not loose the history (if that's an issue.)  But we need to get
> moved off of bkbits.net as soon as possible, and the gentoo server is
> not a current solution :(

I'm also looking for a solution to the same thing, and I've been looking
for you a bit on IRC to discuss this since reading about the BK issue.

Getting a way to host non-Gentoo-copyrighted patches on Gentoo CVS has
been stalled, presumably because nobody knows what to do or who can give
permission. Now would be a great time to try to resolve this.

Donnie
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFCWaanXVaO67S1rtsRAl9tAJ4/Y9vXLuGfphJsqxXqhPV9Ovq/yQCg1tqb
GQGjF40Xsv0JBuM+HBtAHkQ=
=4fAb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Nicholas Jones]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 239 bytes --]

> I doubt this is the right place to ask, but I got no
> reply from the trustees, so...

Just out of curiousity... When did you ask the trustees,
and to whom/where did you post the question?

I have no emails from you in my mboxes.

--NJ


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] GLEP 36: providing both CVS and Subversion?

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1365 bytes --]

On Sunday 10 April 2005 18:39, Aaron Walker wrote:
> Regarding GLEP 36[1], solar has asked me to try and figure out a way to
> provide both CVS and Subversion for one repository and keep them sync'd
> somehow.
>
> Although this was not the intention of my glep, it would be nice to get
> this implemented, as it means all developers of a certain project would not
> be forced to use one over the other.
>
> Unfortunately, I have almost zero experience with repository administration
> (CVS or Subversion), so I'm writing this with hopes that some of you guys
> have some ideas.
>
> The only idea I've had is to maybe setup post-commit hooks for both that
> commit what was just committed to the other (cvs post-commit commits the
> stuff to svn and vice versa).  Is this possible?

Not really. It is not that hard to go from subversion to cvs. The other way 
around however will loose information. This is because cvs is not changeset 
but file based. So if you would like to put sets of changes as one changeset 
into subversion (in a way that somehow you don't loose information on the 
identity of the committer) you would need to collect commits, run heuristics 
on whether they belong together etc. All in all a messy business.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

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