From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SYcBS-000232-GW for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 27 May 2012 12:02:54 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 203B3E0814 for ; Sun, 27 May 2012 12:02:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A745E07DF for ; Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix, from userid 617) id E8E5E1B4011; Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sun, 27 May 2012 10:10:32 +0000 From: Sven Vermeulen To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Use of git for site/proj/docs Message-ID: <20120527101032.GC4011@gentoo.org> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-project@gentoo.org References: <20120526184732.GA4011@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Project discussion list X-BeenThere: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-project@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Archives-Salt: 31c60b4d-1872-4791-8c9f-951d2e3d2604 X-Archives-Hash: e4d5483e861cc4edd687d4714060ce2a On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 02:03:38PM -0500, Matthew Summers wrote: > It is not the size that matters, but the layout of the resulting repo > or repos. I know the Foundation has discussed having it's own repo. > There is also the news/gmn/gwn dir and so on. > > How should these resultant repos be structured? Are we in a position > to retire some of the dirs in gentoo/ ? If the repository as a whole isn't converted to a single repository, you'll always have to deal with creating the necessary awareness towards the users about different locations. But that doesn't mean it'll involve breakage of anything. Personally, I know the most about the gentoo/xml part of the repository. Most of the things below that (like gentoo/xml/htdocs, ...) are all quite much related to each other. A change on an XSL file might be best done simultaneously with a change on a DTD and various XML files. So my suggestion would be to at least keep this repository in one "set". I know there are different privileges assigned below that (translation teams have different commit rights than documentation editors, who have different commit rights than website, etc.) and I don't know if git handles this too. Otoh, for me, I don't mind if the commit rights on gentoo/xml are all put together. After all, we don't put ACLs on gentoo-x86 either do we? The other parts, like gentoo/misc (which hasn't seem an update in years), gentoo/users (which I think can best be migrated to gogo on a per-user level, and might not even require migration of the history) and gentoo/src (which I think can be best migrated to gogo as well, but probably involves history migration too) I know less about. So, what if we - focus on gentoo/xml as a migration to git - contact the folks mentioned in gentoo/users to see if they can request a git repo on gogo and migrate their content themselves - contact the projects mentioned in gentoo/src to see if they need to have a git repo on gogo and if so, if they need to have the commit history migrated as well - put gentoo/misc in freeze Wkr, Sven Vermeulen