[gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Ian Leitch]

For those who aren't devs; epkgmove is a tool to move and rename 
packages around in CVS. It lives here: [1]

As it stands currently, epkgmove is likely to mess up the tree for 
anything but simple package moves/renames with only a couple of minor 
deps. The code is hideous, and needs a rewrite.

However, I don't think we should even be using such a tool. Package 
moves are best done on the server where it can keep track of all 
dependency and package references as they're committed. For epkgmove to 
perform 100% accurate moves, it needs to do a full tree scan plus 
reverse dep checking, which would make it too slow to be useful.
There are a handful of other non-trivial checks it has too perform.

SVN in combination with the mentioned server side caching would probably 
be the best solution, though obviously CVS -> SVN transition for 
gentoo-x86 is no minor task.

For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand.

What are your thoughts on this, infra?

1: http://dev.gentoo.org/~port001/DevTools/epkgmove/

Regards,
Ian Leitch

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Kurt Lieber]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 895 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:33AM +0000 or thereabouts, Ian Leitch wrote:
> For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand.
> 
> What are your thoughts on this, infra?

As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's
call.  If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain opposed
to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of
assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB,
216,000+ files and counting)

CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable,
presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+
years.  Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other
VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and
scalability which are the most important characteristics by far.

--kurt

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Luca Barbato]

Kurt Lieber wrote:

> CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable,
> presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+
> years.  Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other
> VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and
> scalability which are the most important characteristics by far.

I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a 
quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task.

svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed.

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Developer		Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader
http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Caleb Tennis]

> As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's
> call.  If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain
> opposed
> to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of
> assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB,
> 216,000+ files and counting)

KDE moved to Subversion earlier this year, with a few million lines of
source code and hundreds of branches and tags.  It did it flawlessly and
maintained over 400,000 commit history items.

I don't think stability is the biggest hurdle here.  I think the
conversion process will be - they had to write a lot of code from scratch
to handle maintaining all of that history (the stock cvs2svn wasn't robust
enough), and they had to run the conversion process a number of times,
find the bugs, rework their conversion code, and rerun.  It was a lengthy
process (a few weeks I believe).

It's going to require someone to actually write the conversion code and
provide a proof of concept conversion.  If anyone's up to the challenge, I
imagine contacting their sysadmins would be a good start.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Caleb Tennis]

> As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's
> call.  If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain
> opposed
> to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of
> assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB,
> 216,000+ files and counting)

KDE moved to Subversion earlier this year, with a few million lines of
source code and hundreds of branches and tags.  It did it flawlessly and
maintained over 400,000 commit history items.

I don't think stability is the biggest hurdle here.  I think the
conversion process will be - they had to write a lot of code from scratch
to handle maintaining all of that history (the stock cvs2svn wasn't robust
enough), and they had to run the conversion process a number of times,
find the bugs, rework their conversion code, and rerun.  It was a lengthy
process (a few weeks I believe).

It's going to require someone to actually write the conversion code and
provide a proof of concept conversion.  If anyone's up to the challenge, I
imagine contacting their sysadmins would be a good start.


-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Benoit Boissinot]

On 12/10/05, Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Kurt Lieber wrote:
>
> > CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable,
> > presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+
> > years.  Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other
> > VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and
> > scalability which are the most important characteristics by far.
>
> I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a
> quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task.

In case someone is interested, there was a presentation at EuroBSDCon
about switching FreeBSD to Mercurial.

the paper: http://www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/paper.pdf
the slides: http://www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/slides.pdf

regards,

Benoit

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Jason Stubbs]

On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote:
> svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed.

KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course.

--
Jason Stubbs
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Dan Meltzer]

Gcc has also moved to subversion...
On 12/10/05, Jason Stubbs <jstubbs@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote:
> > svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed.
>
> KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course.
>
> --
> Jason Stubbs
> --
> gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 431 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:56:55 +0100 Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
wrote:
| I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a 
| quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task.

Workload isn't the issue. It's number of files.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


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

Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove

[Fernando J. Pereda]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 594 bytes --]

On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:29:09PM +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:56:55 +0100 Luca Barbato <lu_zero@gentoo.org>
| wrote:
| | I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a 
| | quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task.
| 
| Workload isn't the issue. It's number of files.

And not only the number of files... the workflow here doesn't fit in a
distributed enviroment.

Cheers,
Ferdy

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git)
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: The deal with epkgmove

[R Hill]

Kurt Lieber wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:33AM +0000 or thereabouts, Ian Leitch wrote:
>> For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand.
>>
>> What are your thoughts on this, infra?
> 
> As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's
> call.  If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain opposed
> to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of
> assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB,
> 216,000+ files and counting)

GCC also very recently moved it's entire codebase to SVN.  I believe their
repository is around 8.5GiB all told.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01129.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/svn.html
http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SvnHelp

--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list