From: Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project
Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 08:03:32 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BE65034.3000301@gentoo.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100508201141.GA23216@nibiru.local>
On 05/08/10 22:11, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> what problems do you see w/ licensing ?
>
> IMHO, each branch simply has to follow the upstream's license.
i have yet to see easy cases with licensing.
i haven't thought about it in detail yet, tough, to be honest.
> simply normalize: don't use letters but numbers.
i don't believe in simple normalization before i have seen it.
> b) it's not really a release but just a development snapshot -
> that doesnt belong into the main oss-qm repository
why doesn't it belong in there?
> I've chosen that scheme to make the borders more clear (also for
> automatic filtering, etc). In my concept, the vendor is the major
> point of distinction, package comes at second, ...
i guess we agree to disagree then.
i don't think the current scheme promotes cooperation well.
> Well, the term vendor here is defined as a party which provides
> packages in certain variants. "UPSTREAM" is a kind of meta vendor,
> describing the upstreams. "Vendor" is IMHO more generic, since there
> may be vendors who aren't actually a real distro. For example, I
> myself don't publish a complete distro, but a foundation for clean
> building especially for special embedded devices or appliances.
yes, that's why i proposed "downstream" as a replacement.
you don't consider yourself downstream?
> Yes, that's still an open topic. I've chosen to use one big repo
> for easier maintenance, but I'm aware of the problem that the
> repo might become very fat some day.
my point is not about size, only about "users".
> I see two options:
>
> a) split it off into several ones, eg. on per-package basis
> and create a system for (semi-)automatic mass-repo maintenance
> (not completely trivial when using free git hosters as mirrors)
are you aware that splitting it up will reduce the savings in space?
say if they all had byte-identical GPLv3 COPYING files that would be one
blob atm and N blobs in split mode.
> b) add an selective filtering system. AFIAK current stable git
> doesnt provide that yet - I've added an little patch for that:
> http://repo.or.cz/w/oss-qm-packages.git/shortlog/refs/heads/METUX.git.master
while i'm not sure about this in detail yet, could it be this loop
misses to filter the very first entry?
+ while (walk && (walk->next))
+ {
+ if (_filter_remote_ref(transport, walk->next))
+ walk->next = walk->next->next;
+ else
+ walk = walk->next;
+ }
+
best,
sebastian
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-05-09 6:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-05-02 22:32 [gentoo-dev] paper on oss-qm project Enrico Weigelt
2010-05-03 18:41 ` Sebastian Pipping
2010-05-08 20:11 ` Enrico Weigelt
2010-05-09 6:03 ` Sebastian Pipping [this message]
2010-05-17 2:19 ` Enrico Weigelt
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4BE65034.3000301@gentoo.org \
--to=sping@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox