[gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2079 bytes --]

Hi everybody,

Within the next week or two, the Infrastructure team hopes to have the
Git repos hosted on the main VCS server migrated into Gitolite [4] for
ease of management [1]. A more exact timeline will be published within
the next few days.

We would like to consider re-arranging the namespace of repositories at
the same time. Suggestions are welcome (to the -dev list), the only idea
we have so far is a set of top-level directories: 
proj/${PROJNAME}/${REPONAME}.git
private/${PROJNAME}/${REPONAME}.git
gentoo-portage.git [2]
gentoo-portage-historical.git [2]

The entirety of the proj/ namespace will be mirrored to
sources.gentoo.org (and anon.gentoo.org). This replaces the selective
mishmash of choosing repositories that are mirrored.

When the change goes live, if you have a checkout from any of the
following repositories, you will need to change your remote as follows:
OLD:
git+ssh://${USERNAME}@git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/${REPO}.git
NEW:
git+ssh://git@git.gentoo.org/${PATH}/${REPO}.git

The easy way to do it:
# git remote set-url ${REMOTENAME} ${NEWURL}
REMOTENAME is usually 'origin', but advanced git users may have another
name.

It is applicable for the following repositories:
/var/gitroot/devmanual.git [3]
/var/gitroot/gentoo-viewvc-templates.git
/var/gitroot/gstats.git
/var/gitroot/packages.git
(plus 3 private repositories that will be listed on gentoo-core)

[1] Yes, this is one of the checkbox items on the way to hosting the
    main repositories in Git.
[2] This is an idea where I'd like to place the main tree, and the
    additional graftable tree with the full history. I'm not entirely
	happy with this location, and WELCOME suggestions to improve it.
[3] This is the old location, prior to the repository move to
    git.overlays.gentoo.org.
[4] Thanks to idl0r for working on some modifications we needed.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 330 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 01/21/11 21:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> gentoo-portage.git [2]
> gentoo-portage-historical.git [2]
> 
> [..]
> 
> [2] This is an idea where I'd like to place the main tree, and the
>     additional graftable tree with the full history. I'm not entirely
> 	happy with this location, and WELCOME suggestions to improve it.

I would prefer something like "gentoo-main" or "main-tree" over
"gentoo-portage" as could would help reducing the problem of mixing up
our main tree and one of our package managers.  If it actually is the
main tree, why not put that in the name.  Thanks for consideration.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1069 bytes --]

On 21:56 Fri 21 Jan     , Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 01/21/11 21:35, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > gentoo-portage.git [2]
> > gentoo-portage-historical.git [2]
> > 
> > [..]
> > 
> > [2] This is an idea where I'd like to place the main tree, and the
> >     additional graftable tree with the full history. I'm not entirely
> > 	happy with this location, and WELCOME suggestions to improve it.
> 
> I would prefer something like "gentoo-main" or "main-tree" over
> "gentoo-portage" as could would help reducing the problem of mixing up
> our main tree and one of our package managers.  If it actually is the
> main tree, why not put that in the name.  Thanks for consideration.

Sweet, we actually got an invitation to bikeshed! Here's my contributions:

gentoo-tree.git
gentoo-portage-tree.git
portage-tree.git
  (the name 'portage' derives from bsd ports, so it makes sense to keep
   that connection to make it recognizable to that audience)

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 03:47:03PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Sweet, we actually got an invitation to bikeshed! Here's my contributions:
> 
> gentoo-tree.git
> gentoo-portage-tree.git
> portage-tree.git
>   (the name 'portage' derives from bsd ports, so it makes sense to keep
>    that connection to make it recognizable to that audience)
Please note that I said _location_.
I'm not so happy about putting them in in the toplevel namespace.
You need to provide TWO names:
1. The current tree that we will start with.
2. The read-only graftable tree with full history (going back to the
   start of Gentoo commits).

As much as I like the original "Portage tree", I do agree it's lead to
confusing of the source code of the package manager vs. the ebuild tree.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 01/21/11 23:15, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 21, 2011 at 03:47:03PM -0600, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> Sweet, we actually got an invitation to bikeshed! Here's my contributions:
>>
>> gentoo-tree.git
>> gentoo-portage-tree.git
>> portage-tree.git
>>   (the name 'portage' derives from bsd ports, so it makes sense to keep
>>    that connection to make it recognizable to that audience)
> Please note that I said _location_.
> I'm not so happy about putting them in in the toplevel namespace.

I see.  If the long-term goal is too have multiple packages trees, than
maybe

  tree/main.git

or

  tree/core.git

would make sense and go well with "proj/", as that is not plural either:
no "projs/", no "trees/".  It could make

  tree/core.git
  tree/science.git
  tree/games.git
  tree/...

some day.


> You need to provide TWO names:
> 1. The current tree that we will start with.
> 2. The read-only graftable tree with full history (going back to the
>    start of Gentoo commits).

Any of these suffixes for the other one would work for me:
* "past"
* "before"
* "old"
* "history"

"historical" is fine, just a bit long, maybe without need to.


> As much as I like the original "Portage tree", I do agree it's lead to
> confusing of the source code of the package manager vs. the ebuild tree.

Great to hear that you share this worry.

Best,



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 2768 bytes --]

On Friday 21 January 2011 22:35:38 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> Hi everybody,
> 
> Within the next week or two, the Infrastructure team hopes to have the
> Git repos hosted on the main VCS server migrated into Gitolite [4] for
> ease of management [1]. A more exact timeline will be published within
> the next few days.
> 
> We would like to consider re-arranging the namespace of repositories at
> the same time. Suggestions are welcome (to the -dev list), the only idea
> we have so far is a set of top-level directories:
> proj/${PROJNAME}/${REPONAME}.git
> private/${PROJNAME}/${REPONAME}.git
> gentoo-portage.git [2]
> gentoo-portage-historical.git [2]
> 
> The entirety of the proj/ namespace will be mirrored to
> sources.gentoo.org (and anon.gentoo.org). This replaces the selective
> mishmash of choosing repositories that are mirrored.
> 
> When the change goes live, if you have a checkout from any of the
> following repositories, you will need to change your remote as follows:
> OLD:
> git+ssh://${USERNAME}@git.gentoo.org/var/gitroot/${REPO}.git
> NEW:
> git+ssh://git@git.gentoo.org/${PATH}/${REPO}.git
> 
> The easy way to do it:
> # git remote set-url ${REMOTENAME} ${NEWURL}
> REMOTENAME is usually 'origin', but advanced git users may have another
> name.
> 
> It is applicable for the following repositories:
> /var/gitroot/devmanual.git [3]
> /var/gitroot/gentoo-viewvc-templates.git
> /var/gitroot/gstats.git
> /var/gitroot/packages.git
> (plus 3 private repositories that will be listed on gentoo-core)
> 
> [1] Yes, this is one of the checkbox items on the way to hosting the
>     main repositories in Git.
> [2] This is an idea where I'd like to place the main tree, and the
>     additional graftable tree with the full history. I'm not entirely
> 	happy with this location, and WELCOME suggestions to improve it.
> [3] This is the old location, prior to the repository move to
>     git.overlays.gentoo.org.
> [4] Thanks to idl0r for working on some modifications we needed.


Assuming we're going to move the git.overlays.gentoo.org repos there as well 
in the near future, this is the structure i am proposing:

source
 - portage-main.git
 - portage-history.git
infra (or sysadmin)
 - (repo1).git 
 - (repo2).git
 - ...
overlay
 - project (instead of proj)
   - sunrise.git
   - kde.git
   - ...
 - personal (merge dev/ & user/)
   - aballier.git
   - alexxy.git
   - ...
website
 - blogs.git
 - planet.git
 - forums.git
 - gstats.git
 - packages.git
 - www.git (the gentoo cvs repo)
 - ...
project (includes SOC projects, forks, gentoo projects etc)
 - devmanual.git
 - portage.git
 - ...
-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Donnie Berkholz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1213 bytes --]

On 04:38 Sat 22 Jan     , Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Assuming we're going to move the git.overlays.gentoo.org repos there as well 
> in the near future, this is the structure i am proposing:
> 
> source
>  - portage-main.git
>  - portage-history.git
> infra (or sysadmin)
>  - (repo1).git 
>  - (repo2).git
>  - ...
> overlay
>  - project (instead of proj)
>    - sunrise.git
>    - kde.git
>    - ...
>  - personal (merge dev/ & user/)
>    - aballier.git
>    - alexxy.git
>    - ...
> website
>  - blogs.git
>  - planet.git
>  - forums.git
>  - gstats.git
>  - packages.git
>  - www.git (the gentoo cvs repo)
>  - ...
> project (includes SOC projects, forks, gentoo projects etc)
>  - devmanual.git
>  - portage.git
>  - ...


I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree 
and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like 
tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason 
I can think of to discriminate between overlays that are project vs 
personal, since either can be supported or unsupported.

-- 
Thanks,
Donnie

Donnie Berkholz
Sr. Developer, Gentoo Linux
Blog: http://dberkholz.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 04:38:49AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Assuming we're going to move the git.overlays.gentoo.org repos there as well 
> in the near future, this is the structure i am proposing:
Yes, they will be merging, but not for many months. What _DO_ need, is
getting the namespaces to be identical as soon as possible, and
preventing namespace collisions for anything that gets added.

Two overall comments about your proposal.
1. 
We EXPLICITLY need a location for private repositories.
- infra: for critical system data [1]
- foundation: for legal tracking, personal, financial information
- PR project: I don't know what they have in there. I've never looked at
  their private repo.

The current breakdown of private repos:
Infra: 2
Foundation: 0, but 2 requested
PR: 1

> source
>  - portage-main.git
>  - portage-history.git
> infra (or sysadmin)
>  - (repo1).git 
>  - (repo2).git
>  - ...
- I don't think that infra should be a toplevel here. As much as we
  intend to use repos, this is pollution of the namespace.

> overlay
>  - project (instead of proj)
>    - sunrise.git
>    - kde.git
>    - ...
>  - personal (merge dev/ & user/)
>    - aballier.git
>    - alexxy.git
>    - ...
- Some of the developer+user repos are NOT overlays, but Gentoo-specific
  code/applications.
- On one hand, I would like user repositories to have a separate
  namespace, so that other users realize a given repo is NOT from a
  developer. 
  - On the other side, what do we do when a user with a repo becomes a
	developer (and when they retire?)

> website
>  - blogs.git
>  - planet.git
>  - forums.git
>  - gstats.git
>  - packages.git
>  - www.git (the gentoo cvs repo)
>  - ...
These are projects, why not include them there?

> project (includes SOC projects, forks, gentoo projects etc)
>  - devmanual.git
>  - portage.git
>  - ...
devmanual IS a website...

How are you differentiating project vs. website?

[1] We intend on having public infra repos as well, and just having the
    fewest private repos.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[gentoo-dev] Re: Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Ryan Hill]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 816 bytes --]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:20:27 -0600
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree 
> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like 
> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason 
> I can think of to discriminate between overlays that are project vs 
> personal, since either can be supported or unsupported.

Readability?  It's already hard to find the repo you're looking for in that
huge list.  I wouldn't want to see them mixed. 


-- 
fonts, gcc-porting,                  it makes no sense how it makes no sense
toolchain, wxwidgets                           but i'll take it free anytime
@ gentoo.org                EFFD 380E 047A 4B51 D2BD C64F 8AA8 8346 F9A4 0662

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Michał Górny]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 436 bytes --]

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 22:20:27 -0600
Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@gentoo.org> wrote:

> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main
> tree and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for
> both, like tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/.

Yeah, that'd be a good idea for the concept of repositories.

- repos/project/gentoo.git
- repos/project/sunrise.git
etc.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Górny

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1849 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 January 2011 10:55:19 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 1.
> We EXPLICITLY need a location for private repositories.

didn't know that, so i guess the private dir should be:
private
 - infra
   - (infrapriv1).git
   - (infrapriv2).git
 - foundation
   - (foundpriv1).git
   - (foundpriv2).git
 - pr
   - ....
 
> - Some of the developer+user repos are NOT overlays, but Gentoo-specific
>   code/applications.

These DON'T belong here, they should go to project/

> - On one hand, I would like user repositories to have a separate
>   namespace, so that other users realize a given repo is NOT from a
>   developer.
>   - On the other side, what do we do when a user with a repo becomes a
> 	developer (and when they retire?)
> 

Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in layman 
-L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list. Furthermore, I got 
at least three requests from developers to move their repo from user/ to dev/ 
(same problem when devs retired). This distinction doesn't make any sense.

> 
> These are projects, why not include them there?
>

All of the above are *.gentoo.org subdomains
 
> > project (includes SOC projects, forks, gentoo projects etc)
> > 
> >  - devmanual.git
> >  - portage.git
> >  - ...
> 
> devmanual IS a website...
> 
> How are you differentiating project vs. website?

devmanual should go to website/, you are right. In project/ belongs anything 
that is not a *.g.o subdomain, and is not an overlay (SOC projects, upstream 
projects (portage, gorg, rbot*, znurt), forks (gitolite-gentoo))

> 
> [1] We intend on having public infra repos as well, and just having the
>     fewest private repos.

Send them to project/ as well ;)

-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1114 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 January 2011 06:20:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree
> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like
> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason
> I can think of to discriminate between overlays that are project vs
> personal, since either can be supported or unsupported.

And I don't see a reason to merge the huge overlays list with the official 
gentoo tree. They are totally different things, and a future alternative to 
viewvc in sources.gentoo.org (maybe trac-git) should reflect that. If we show 
a huge list with ebuild repos to public (especially to new to gentoo) without 
separating the official tree (including user/unofficial/bad-shaped ones), I 
suppose we'll give the impression we are like debian, where the user needs the 
multimedia overlay to get multimedia ebuilds, or the kde overlay to install 
kde.

For the second part of your question, Ryan's responce is perfect.
-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Alexey Shvetsov]

Hi all!

Why not use redmine as sources.gentoo.org?

2011/1/22 Theo Chatzimichos <tampakrap@gentoo.org>:
> On Saturday 22 January 2011 06:20:27 Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree
>> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like
>> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason
>> I can think of to discriminate between overlays that are project vs
>> personal, since either can be supported or unsupported.
>
> And I don't see a reason to merge the huge overlays list with the official
> gentoo tree. They are totally different things, and a future alternative to
> viewvc in sources.gentoo.org (maybe trac-git) should reflect that. If we show
> a huge list with ebuild repos to public (especially to new to gentoo) without
> separating the official tree (including user/unofficial/bad-shaped ones), I
> suppose we'll give the impression we are like debian, where the user needs the
> multimedia overlay to get multimedia ebuilds, or the kde overlay to install
> kde.
>
> For the second part of your question, Ryan's responce is perfect.
> --
> Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
> Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays
>



-- 
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

On 22-01-2011 03:20, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> On 04:38 Sat 22 Jan     , Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>> Assuming we're going to move the git.overlays.gentoo.org repos there as well 
>> in the near future, this is the structure i am proposing:
>>
>> source
>>  - portage-main.git
>>  - portage-history.git
...

>> overlay
>>  - project (instead of proj)
>>    - sunrise.git
>>    - kde.git
>>    - ...
>>  - personal (merge dev/ & user/)
>>    - aballier.git
>>    - alexxy.git
>>    - ...
> I don't see any particular reason to distinguish between the main tree 
> and overlays in this structure. Just do something common for both, like 
> tree/ or ebuilds/ or packages/. In the same vein, there's no good reason 
> I can think of to discriminate between overlays that are project vs 
> personal, since either can be supported or unsupported.

I think a distinction between tree and project overlays can be useful in
case we ever consider "splitting" the main tree. In that case, our new
tree would be composed of all the "split" repos under tree and users
would have an easy way to distinguish between the "tree" and project
"overlays".

We could even provide the ability for users to have just some of the
"split" repos and thus not require the complete "tree".


- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNOvOLAAoJEC8ZTXQF1qEP924P/2dbxlK8m3y0k4/ArQojeJH7
9HY3NzMImIuIW44kcdGhEj6+bJDEPGTz1Pb1zGrNMSxNYgrxrXYkEKEWldNYszm7
TNqQvm+Pl9D39ckjjDzV+zMfKZQn9UtM3MCTOw4ozWZynSLGajkpZK6Cp4BIiOjF
JiPi+Q8zSw/Xc8umLxK4ZfWy4n4WhLDbJgxO8ws+s27iSlQemJhqlOmCw1nMAcyB
FPlf1cyMa0MxUStqHWzJ0MBtYOfkxoSNvnXAoVl47DGPbOagdSSWkbbmx5p6vn2C
HpJ/xNfJkDoPa6DPrbBdQtmiay3A72fkokwLSFKMvNhMjDMeMhR30IPxDkrRf/ls
faIK7FKeJbh/sWr0XgBVR5rsASSQkor647DbjT04/v+g9HN/bB9IxmYY9hVC66aw
+j0gph07zTuXUAHDcqqSnMxlr3MGril+mAVXf+ne2N6emrP88K2plnSGc5LmUfyy
i+eEfb5UBTxfBfmyollKArVS9djzKveKLiVgIn1ga6kyj7JGYiDZnJTOfHJ1sfdc
R8dti5qyqQUruzmjkEeGQEMBpawIh/ZYY3LDfh7MaDkLjLScdVUHgZDipn+QjIUx
lliDjRK5sa1S4WWojK0t/gd3ikW/YrXQRHpLo9EOtMzkRfR9FSbFv+ew8ud5RlyN
eIQrF7smR0LCOMF1/mzj
=ytaq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 486 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 January 2011 16:58:38 Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> Hi all!
> 
> Why not use redmine as sources.gentoo.org?

idl0r installed trac-git for git.overlays, it needs some testing before 
starting to redesign the overlays webpages (ETA 1 month due to my exams) If we 
decide that it doesn't suit our needs we'll proceed in trying something else, 
but this is totally offtopic, please stick to the topic.
-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto]

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

On 22-01-2011 11:32, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> On Saturday 22 January 2011 10:55:19 Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> 1.
>> We EXPLICITLY need a location for private repositories.
> 
> didn't know that, so i guess the private dir should be:
> private
>  - infra
>    - (infrapriv1).git
>    - (infrapriv2).git
>  - foundation
>    - (foundpriv1).git
>    - (foundpriv2).git
>  - pr
>    - ....
>  
>> - Some of the developer+user repos are NOT overlays, but Gentoo-specific
>>   code/applications.
> 
> These DON'T belong here, they should go to project/

Why not provide a tree for overlays and another for application
repositories?

>> - On one hand, I would like user repositories to have a separate
>>   namespace, so that other users realize a given repo is NOT from a
>>   developer.
>>   - On the other side, what do we do when a user with a repo becomes a
>> 	developer (and when they retire?)
>>
> 
> Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in layman 
> -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list. Furthermore, I got 
> at least three requests from developers to move their repo from user/ to dev/ 
> (same problem when devs retired). This distinction doesn't make any sense.

Instead of relying on the name space for such a distinction, I propose
we use a "label" for that. Preferably we should have an automatic system
to produce the label and have it present on any online repo browsers
(gitweb?) and on project management apps (redmine?) so that users have
no doubt when looking at projects.gentoo.org / overlays.gentoo.org about
the type of a repo. The "label" to distinguish between developers and
non-developers repos could take advantage of the ldap info. We could
also use labels for the status of a project like we're already doing on
layman.

With the above in mind and some of the suggestions in the other emails,
what about the following structure:


<tree>

 - core-portage-tree.git
 - core-portage-historical-tree.git

 (possibly some day)
 - gnome.git
 - kde.git
 - sci.git
 - x11.git
 (split profiles, keywords(?))
 - profiles.git


<overlay>

 - project (do we want to support non-gentoo projects?)
    . gnome.git
    . kde.git
    . sci.git
    . sunrise.git
    . <external project a*>
    . ...

 - individual (we need to decide whether we want to host and the "legal
costs" of hosting non-gentoo individual's or project's repos)
    . aballier.git
    . alexxy.git
    . <user a*>
    . ...


<project>

 - pages (project web pages, but not applications code source like
forums, blogs or PMS)

    . main-site.git (split from the current gentoo repo)
    . gentoo-project.git (should we split the current gentoo repo?)
    . devmanual.git

 - repositories

    . project (tied to projects)

      ^ gentoo-forums.git
      ^ gentoo-blogs.git
      ^ gitolite-gentoo
      ^ gstats.git
      ^ packages.git
      ^ planet.git
      ^ portage.git
      ^ pms.git
      ^ releng.git

    . individual (work of one or more individuals not tied to any projects)

      ^ portage-utils.git (not tied to any project afaik)
      ^ layman.git
      ^ rbot-gentoo (is it tied to any project?)
      ^ <cool new toy for Gentoo done by devs A and B>

      ^ soc (include individual soc projects here) (would it make sense
to organize by year?)

        ' <soc project 1>
        ' <soc project 2>


<private>

 - foundation
    . legal
    . finances
    . ...

 - infra
    . <infra 1>
    . <infra 2>
    . ...

 - pr
    . <pr 1>
    . <pr 2>
    . ...


This design includes 4 top-level labels: tree, overlay, project and private:
 * the tree sub-tree should be used for the Portage tree, it's history
and any future "trees" we choose to have.
 * the overlay sub-tree should be used to host repositories to be used
as overlays.
 * the project sub-tree should be used to host the web pages and sites
and all the repositories for applications / tools.
 * the private sub-tree should be used for private repositories that
cannot be exposed to the public.


- -- 
Regards,

Jorge Vicetto (jmbsvicetto) - jmbsvicetto at gentoo dot org
Gentoo- forums / Userrel / Devrel / KDE / Elections / RelEng
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=gzPb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 322 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 January 2011 18:02:59 Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: 
> Why not provide a tree for overlays and another for application
> repositories?

You just repeated my proposal, with the only difference I splitted project 
from website :P
-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

[gentoo-dev] Re: Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Duncan]

Theo Chatzimichos posted on Sat, 22 Jan 2011 14:32:34 +0200 as excerpted:

>> - On one hand, I would like user repositories to have a separate
>>   namespace, so that other users realize a given repo is NOT from a
>>   developer.
>> - On the other side, what do we do when a user with a repo becomes a
>>   developer (and when they retire?)
>> 
> Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in
> layman -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list.
> Furthermore, I got at least three requests from developers to move their
> repo from user/ to dev/ (same problem when devs retired). This
> distinction doesn't make any sense.

Agreed with the layman distinction being the practical one for those using 
it.  However, for site browsers the distinction could still be useful, and 
I prefer it in the filesystem layout rather than as a label.

Does the symlink concept work?  If so, what about a generic "people" 
subtree, with dev and user either at the same level or inside people, 
along with the list.  Then simply symlink the individual repos to either 
dev or user as appropriate (or only have the dev subcase/symlink, so 
people can choose either dev specifically, or all users including devs).  
Layman could use the generic people path regardless so the path never 
changes, and its user/dev description could be updated along with the 
symlinks.  Meanwhile, site browsers could choose to browse the generic 
version or the user/dev specific listings, as they wished.

Tho with layman being the interface most will see and use in general, 
labels in the browser interface would probably do.  I just prefer the 
filesystem layout distinction, especially if it's as trivial as managing a 
few symlinks.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 01/22/11 13:32, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in layman 
> -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list. Furthermore, I got 
> at least three requests from developers to move their repo from user/ to dev/ 
> (same problem when devs retired). This distinction doesn't make any sense.

Three request over what time?  Compared to a screen height of user repos
created, maybe that's not much.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 01/22/11 09:55, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - On one hand, I would like user repositories to have a separate
>   namespace, so that other users realize a given repo is NOT from a
>   developer. 

Seconding that.


>   - On the other side, what do we do when a user with a repo becomes a
> 	developer (and when they retire?)

To avoid a move, you'd have to give away distinction.  To be able to do
path-based distinction, you have to move on status updates.  It seems
that you cannot have both at the same time.



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Robin H. Johnson]

On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 03:02:59PM -0100, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote:
> > Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in layman 
> > -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list. Furthermore, I got 
> > at least three requests from developers to move their repo from user/ to dev/ 
> > (same problem when devs retired). This distinction doesn't make any sense.
> Instead of relying on the name space for such a distinction, I propose
> we use a "label" for that. Preferably we should have an automatic system
> to produce the label and have it present on any online repo browsers
> (gitweb?) and on project management apps (redmine?) so that users have
> no doubt when looking at projects.gentoo.org / overlays.gentoo.org about
> the type of a repo. The "label" to distinguish between developers and
> non-developers repos could take advantage of the ldap info. We could
> also use labels for the status of a project like we're already doing on
> layman.
The existence of labels is completely irrelevant to the actual PATH to
the repos, of which there can be only one, and changing it later is
going to upset people.

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Theo Chatzimichos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 1443 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 January 2011 20:06:06 Sebastian Pipping wrote:
> On 01/22/11 13:32, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> > Well, the distinction for unofficial/official overlays happen mostly in
> > layman -L, I don't think users pay attention to our git repo list.
> > Furthermore, I got at least three requests from developers to move their
> > repo from user/ to dev/ (same problem when devs retired). This
> > distinction doesn't make any sense.
> 
> Three request over what time?  Compared to a screen height of user repos
> created, maybe that's not much.
> 
> 
> 
> Sebastian

I'm sorry I don't share your point. I think I was quite clear, the 
user/developer distinction (or better, the unofficial/official overlay) should 
happen in layman list and in overlays website, not in gitolite. Take a look at 
the current list in gitweb and tell me honestly how clear and distinct is that 
thing for you. For the record:
the following overlays should move from dev/ to user/:
b33fc0d3, hawking, uberlord, welp
the following should move from user/ to dev/:
dilfridge
at least two people with user/ overlays are going to be gentoo devs soon
and last but not least, smithdanea overlay is useless because c1pher has a dev 
overlay as well now
not to mention the proj/ list.
And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five 
years
-- 
Theo Chatzimichos (tampakrap)
Gentoo KDE/Qt, Planet, Overlays

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

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Robin H. Johnson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 439 bytes --]

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
> And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five 
> years
So you're in favour of making it 'people/' and just distinguishing in
the descriptions and Layman?

-- 
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail     : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP   : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED  F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 330 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Tomáš Chvátal]

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

Dne 25.1.2011 23:08, Robin H. Johnson napsal(a):
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>> And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five 
>> years
> So you're in favour of making it 'people/' and just distinguishing in
> the descriptions and Layman?
> 
Could you guys do it like mammals/

Kthx :)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk0/SrsACgkQHB6c3gNBRYc6aQCgnWhn+TpaL2ZridSW21wernJL
ZQIAoKhqrbD28kGr4BtV/kBRIGAVhsm7
=AU/O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] Upcoming changes to hosting of Git repos on git.gentoo.org (NOT overlays.git.gentoo.org)

[Alec Warner]

like on the discovery channel?

-A

2011/1/25 Tomáš Chvátal <scarabeus@gentoo.org>:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dne 25.1.2011 23:08, Robin H. Johnson napsal(a):
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 12:02:16AM +0200, Theo Chatzimichos wrote:
>>> And now, imagine the state of the user/ dev/ list mess in, say, two or five
>>> years
>> So you're in favour of making it 'people/' and just distinguishing in
>> the descriptions and Layman?
>>
> Could you guys do it like mammals/
>
> Kthx :)
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0/SrsACgkQHB6c3gNBRYc6aQCgnWhn+TpaL2ZridSW21wernJL
> ZQIAoKhqrbD28kGr4BtV/kBRIGAVhsm7
> =AU/O
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>