From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.54) id 1FZo9z-0006sx-Iw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:02:52 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k3TC16ST004262; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 12:01:06 GMT Received: from sa8.bezeqint.net (sa8.bezeqint.net [192.115.104.22]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k3TBwfGC009311 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 11:58:41 GMT Received: from localhost (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by sa8.bezeqint.net (Bezeq International SMTP out Mail Server) with ESMTP id 1B51A33B36 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:56:24 +0300 (IDT) Received: from sa8.bezeqint.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sa8 [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 12609-03 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:56:20 +0300 (IDT) Received: from claw.danarmak.homelinux.net (unknown [88.155.29.13]) by sa8.bezeqint.net (Bezeq International SMTP out Mail Server) with ESMTP for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:56:20 +0300 (IDT) Received: by claw.danarmak.homelinux.net (Postfix, from userid 1001) id EBFD7311632; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:58:48 +0300 (IDT) Received: from claw (claw [10.0.0.1]) by claw.danarmak.homelinux.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EDE31F0738 for ; Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:58:48 +0300 (IDT) From: Dan Armak Organization: Gentoo Linux To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo: State of the Union Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 14:58:43 +0300 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> In-Reply-To: <20060428171453.GB62035@watcher.kimaker.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart9334270.n4dAHIZLmr"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200604291458.48191.danarmak@gentoo.org> X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at bezeqint.net X-Archives-Salt: f3103929-fab3-469a-9559-d1316559f4f6 X-Archives-Hash: d18c30585587b825702b5e3af2321df6 --nextPart9334270.n4dAHIZLmr Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday 28 April 2006 20:14, Ryan Phillips wrote: > __Problem: Live Tree__ > > Having a live tree requires people to be perfect. People are not perfect > and requiring it is ridiculous. I love having commits in my local tree > within the hour, but having a stable and unstable branch makes a lot of > sense. > > CVS doesn't do branching nor tags very well... > > __Problem: CVS__ > > CVS is one of the worst application ever created. The portage tree needs > to move to subversion. A lot of the problems within the project would be > solved by using a better SCM system. The previous problems regarding the > Live Tree and Developer Growth would be solved, IMHO, by just switching.= =20 > Branches Work. Tags Work. Reverts work. Moves work. I don't see any > reason not to use it. It just plain works. > > Projects (gentoo/bsd, embedded, hardened) could choose to keep their own > branches of the portage tree and merge with trunk as needed. Projects > could stick to traditional solutions like profiles if they so wished. > > Some will probably ask who will merge between branches. We can do that > easily ourselves. If I think a package is good to go, then svn merge > -r1123:1124 to the branch. I'm very much in favor of moving to a new SCM, and I see how it could solve= =20 many problems. But I don't understand how it could remove the need for a li= ve=20 tree. Could you explain the new usage pattern you're suggesting here? If there's no live tree (or live branch), then every commit has to be merge= d=20 from the 'incoming' branch or trunk where it is originally committed to=20 the 'outgoing' branch which is directly used by users, even for ~arch chage= s.=20 Is that really what you mean? And this becomes a lot worse if you want to replace (at least some) KEYWORD= S=20 with branches, and have to merge each change many times. Meanwhile, if no-one is using trunk (or the 'incoming' branch) directly=20 (because it's not live), what is the benefit of leaving commits there for a= =20 few hours? It won't help you find most problems. Apart from having no live tree, though, I understand and like the model of= =20 having: =2D 'Incoming' (sandbox) branches where non-dev affiliates, and new devs, c= ommit=20 things which are then reviewed by a full dev/mentor and merged into trunk. =2D Branches replacing today's various overlays for devs (or projects, etc)= and=20 anyone else we might welcome on g.o infrastructure (given per-branch commit= =20 permissions). =2D Short-lived branches to replace things that are today package.masked. =2D Branches to replace various non-arch keywords and projects, like harden= ed=20 stuff, some server/ultrastable tree proposals, ... =2D-=20 Dan Armak Gentoo Linux developer (KDE) Public GPG key: http://dev.gentoo.org/~danarmak/danarmak-gpg-public.key =46ingerprint: DD70 DBF9 E3D4 6CB9 2FDD 0069 508D 9143 8D5F 8951 --nextPart9334270.n4dAHIZLmr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBEU1T4UI2RQ41fiVERAr1GAKCI0NgjjR5rFaOhbG0fBlguPdR3BwCaA/eg ObVd4FkKf9mnY+suzbZ5oV0= =kJ+y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart9334270.n4dAHIZLmr-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list