[gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[hasufell]

I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
practically useless.

If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).

Let's just remove it.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[William Hubbs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 503 bytes --]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 06:33:16PM +0200, hasufell wrote:
> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
> practically useless.
>
> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
> 
> Let's just remove it.

I was wondering why this is there also; I would vote for removing it as
well.

William


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 19.08.2015 18:33, hasufell wrote:
> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
> practically useless.
> 
> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
> 
> Let's just remove it.
> 

With that line removed, how do we notice that people are committing
without repoman or not running repoman checks at least?

There is quite a risk of things going straight into stable by mistake
when repoman is not used.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Zac Medico]

On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
> practically useless.
> 
> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
> 
> Let's just remove it.
> 

The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 927 bytes --]

On 08/19/2015 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>> practically useless.
>>
>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>
>> Let's just remove it.
>>
> 
> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
> 
If repoman supported adding a signedoffby line I'd likely use it more
for commits.  Still running repoman full before commit though.

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Damien Robichaud]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2 bytes --]

V

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 19 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Mike Gilbert]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Thode
<prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>>> practically useless.
>>>
>>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>>
>>> Let's just remove it.
>>>
>>
>> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
>> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
>> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
>> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
>>
> If repoman supported adding a signedoffby line I'd likely use it more
> for commits.  Still running repoman full before commit though.

I do not believe we have an requirement for adding Signed-off-by in
the gentoo repository. Why do you feel the need to do that?

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Matthew Thode]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1270 bytes --]

On 08/19/2015 12:48 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Thode
> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> On 08/19/2015 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>>>> practically useless.
>>>>
>>>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>>>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>>>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>>>
>>>> Let's just remove it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
>>> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
>>> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
>>> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
>>>
>> If repoman supported adding a signedoffby line I'd likely use it more
>> for commits.  Still running repoman full before commit though.
> 
> I do not believe we have an requirement for adding Signed-off-by in
> the gentoo repository. Why do you feel the need to do that?
> 
General completeness is all

-- 
-- Matthew Thode (prometheanfire)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[hasufell]

On 08/19/2015 08:00 PM, Matthew Thode wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 12:48 PM, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 1:38 PM, Matthew Thode
>> <prometheanfire@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> On 08/19/2015 12:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>>>> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>>>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>>>>> practically useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>>>>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>>>>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's just remove it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
>>>> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
>>>> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
>>>> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
>>>>
>>> If repoman supported adding a signedoffby line I'd likely use it more
>>> for commits.  Still running repoman full before commit though.
>>
>> I do not believe we have an requirement for adding Signed-off-by in
>> the gentoo repository. Why do you feel the need to do that?
>>
> General completeness is all
> 

Signed-off-by has a completely different purpose which is not part of
our workflow, so that tag is pretty useless to us most of the time.

See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Gentoo_git_workflow#Sign-Off

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Signed-off-by has a completely different purpose which is not part of
> our workflow, so that tag is pretty useless to us most of the time.
>
> See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Gentoo_git_workflow#Sign-Off
>

I agree.  Generally it is used to signify agreement to a developer
certificate of origin.  I would recommend using it for any other
purpose, especially since there has been talk of instituting a DCO for
Gentoo (based on the Linux DCO).  We're not at the point of doing that
just yet, but I wouldn't stick something entirely different in that
field so that if we do institute a DCO we end up doing it differently
than every other project that uses Git.

If we want to capture this it should go in its own header.  If the
goal is to capture the repoman version, then I'd just capture the
repoman version, or some identifier for the set of rules repoman was
checking against at the moment (I'm not sure if repoman uses any kind
of data updated outside of portage releases).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Brian Dolbec]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:24:24 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, hasufell <hasufell@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > Signed-off-by has a completely different purpose which is not part
> > of our workflow, so that tag is pretty useless to us most of the
> > time.
> >
> > See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Gentoo_git_workflow#Sign-Off
> >
> 
> I agree.  Generally it is used to signify agreement to a developer
> certificate of origin.  I would recommend using it for any other
> purpose, especially since there has been talk of instituting a DCO for
> Gentoo (based on the Linux DCO).  We're not at the point of doing that
> just yet, but I wouldn't stick something entirely different in that
> field so that if we do institute a DCO we end up doing it differently
> than every other project that uses Git.
> 
> If we want to capture this it should go in its own header.  If the
> goal is to capture the repoman version, then I'd just capture the
> repoman version, or some identifier for the set of rules repoman was
> checking against at the moment (I'm not sure if repoman uses any kind
> of data updated outside of portage releases).
> 

It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates and
updates itself with.  But that is very likely to change with the
rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly).  I have also seriously been
contemplating splitting off it's release from the main portage package.

Most users don't ever use repoman.  Plus once the plugin system and
checks data downloads are in place, there will be far less need for
updates and releases.  I would still keep it part of the portage
repository due to it's ties to the codebase.  Just release it as a
separate installable package.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates and
> updates itself with.  But that is very likely to change with the
> rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly).  I have also seriously been
> contemplating splitting off it's release from the main portage package.
>

Now I remember the conversations.  Having repoman rules at the
repository level, local system level, and a few others (I forget where
the thread was).  Overlays can have their own rules, and so on.  It
doesn't make sense to update portage every time there is a new QA
policy.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Brian Dolbec]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 17:25:51 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
> >
> > It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates
> > and updates itself with.  But that is very likely to change with the
> > rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly).  I have also seriously
> > been contemplating splitting off it's release from the main portage
> > package.
> >
> 
> Now I remember the conversations.  Having repoman rules at the
> repository level, local system level, and a few others (I forget where
> the thread was).  Overlays can have their own rules, and so on.  It
> doesn't make sense to update portage every time there is a new QA
> policy.
> 

EXACTLY!

There will still need to be occasional releases due to the need for
additional or changed code.  But for trivial changes like deprecating
an EAPI or adding a new eclass,...  That is all data it can easily
download or even get within the git/rsync tree.  Then just iterate over
the various entries.  There will be no need for a new release.
-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen>

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[hasufell]

On 08/19/2015 07:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>> practically useless.
>>
>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>
>> Let's just remove it.
>>
> 
> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
> 

Why is it called "Package-Manager:" then?

And how often was that useful in practice?

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Zac Medico]

On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 07:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
>>> practically useless.
>>>
>>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
>>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
>>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
>>>
>>> Let's just remove it.
>>>
>>
>> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
>> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
>> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
>> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
>>
> 
> Why is it called "Package-Manager:" then?

Because repoman in bundled with portage, I guess. I suppose we could
change it to something else.

> And how often was that useful in practice?

Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time
that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new
dependency features that require new repoman checks.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Guilherme Amadio]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 11:00:49AM -0700, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
> > On 08/19/2015 07:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> >> On 08/19/2015 09:33 AM, hasufell wrote:
> >>> I don't want to start a lot of bikeshed, but I think this information is
> >>> practically useless.
> >>>
> >>> If there has been a problem with a commit, ask the developer about his
> >>> repoman version (which I believe was the reason for this, unless you
> >>> want me to add "Package-Manager: paludis-2.4.0" to every commit ;).
> >>>
> >>> Let's just remove it.
> >>>
> >>
> >> The intent is to leave a record of the version of repoman used, which
> >> leaves an audit trail in case there's a bug in some some version (or to
> >> detect if someone is using an ancient version). It can especially be
> >> useful when new repoman checks need to be added for new EAPI features.
> >>
> > 
> > Why is it called "Package-Manager:" then?
> 
> Because repoman in bundled with portage, I guess. I suppose we could
> change it to something else.

How about the line below?

Signed-off-by: <dev name> (repoman <version>)

Cheers,
—Guilherme

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[hasufell]

On 08/19/2015 08:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
>> And how often was that useful in practice?
> 
> Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time
> that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new
> dependency features that require new repoman checks.
> 

Still am not sure how this is useful in practice.

Some commit is broken, someone else finds out. He runs repoman locally:
* repoman reports the brokenness -> ask the committer which repoman
  version he used (and if he can reproduce it with latest stable
  repoman)
* repoman does not report brokenness -> report a bug against his local
  version after checking that he is up2date

Now with git... it is even easier to test these things, because you can
just jump back in time and run repoman on the offending commit. No
reason to include that information in all commits, afais. And it doesn't
tell you much anyway, because other versions could be affected too by
the bug, so you end up debugging properly anyway.

Re: [gentoo-dev] repoman adding "Package-Manager: portage-2.2.20.1" to every single commit

[Zac Medico]

On 08/19/2015 11:11 AM, hasufell wrote:
> On 08/19/2015 08:00 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 08/19/2015 10:49 AM, hasufell wrote:
>>> And how often was that useful in practice?
>>
>> Well, there haven't been any EAPI bumps lately. However, in the time
>> that follows an EAPI bump, it can be very useful if there are new
>> dependency features that require new repoman checks.
>>
> 
> Still am not sure how this is useful in practice.
> 
> Some commit is broken, someone else finds out. He runs repoman locally:
> * repoman reports the brokenness -> ask the committer which repoman
>   version he used (and if he can reproduce it with latest stable
>   repoman)
> * repoman does not report brokenness -> report a bug against his local
>   version after checking that he is up2date

I guess that will probably work well enough.

> Now with git... it is even easier to test these things, because you can
> just jump back in time and run repoman on the offending commit.

Well, that's true if they use merge commits. If they rebase, that's
trickier. I'm not really worried about it, though.

> No
> reason to include that information in all commits, afais. And it doesn't
> tell you much anyway, because other versions could be affected too by
> the bug, so you end up debugging properly anyway.
> 

Yeah, I'm will willing to let it go away.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac