* [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12
@ 2017-02-27 16:05 William Hubbs
2017-02-27 17:09 ` Ulrich Mueller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Hubbs @ 2017-02-27 16:05 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-dev-announce; +Cc: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 242 bytes --]
All,
the Gentoo council will meet again on March 12 at 19:00 utc in the
#gentoo-council channel on freenode.
Please respond to this message with any items you would like us to add
to the agenda to vote on or discuss.
Thanks much,
William
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12
2017-02-27 16:05 [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12 William Hubbs
@ 2017-02-27 17:09 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-02-27 17:36 ` Mike Gilbert
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2017-02-27 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1314 bytes --]
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, William Hubbs wrote:
> the Gentoo council will meet again on March 12 at 19:00 utc in the
> #gentoo-council channel on freenode.
> Please respond to this message with any items you would like us to
> add to the agenda to vote on or discuss.
In the 2014-10-14 meeting, there was the following decision under the
"Git Migration Issues" topic:
Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge,
radhermit, rich0, williamh
This was again briefly discussed in the 2016-04-10 meeting (following
a discussion in the gentoo-dev mailing list) and in the 2016-11-13
meeting (with respect to a repoman check for the ebuild header).
Since there appear to be doubts how to interpret above mentioned
decision, I would like to ask the Council to clarify the following
points:
a) Are $Id$ and $Header$ lines to be removed in the gentoo repository?
b) Does this only apply to ebuilds and eclasses, or also to other
files in the tree, e.g., metadata, profiles, and files in FILESDIR
other than patches (like init scripts)?
c) Should these lines be removed in one go, or should we enable a
repoman check and have them fade out over time?
d) Should git expansion of $Id$ be enabled (i.e., ident in git
attributes)?
Ulrich
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12
2017-02-27 17:09 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2017-02-27 17:36 ` Mike Gilbert
2017-02-27 18:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Mike Gilbert @ 2017-02-27 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, William Hubbs wrote:
>
>> the Gentoo council will meet again on March 12 at 19:00 utc in the
>> #gentoo-council channel on freenode.
>> Please respond to this message with any items you would like us to
>> add to the agenda to vote on or discuss.
>
> In the 2014-10-14 meeting, there was the following decision under the
> "Git Migration Issues" topic:
>
> Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
>
> Aye: blueness, creffett (proxy for ulm), dberkholz, dilfridge,
> radhermit, rich0, williamh
>
> This was again briefly discussed in the 2016-04-10 meeting (following
> a discussion in the gentoo-dev mailing list) and in the 2016-11-13
> meeting (with respect to a repoman check for the ebuild header).
>
> Since there appear to be doubts how to interpret above mentioned
> decision, I would like to ask the Council to clarify the following
> points:
>
> a) Are $Id$ and $Header$ lines to be removed in the gentoo repository?
>
> b) Does this only apply to ebuilds and eclasses, or also to other
> files in the tree, e.g., metadata, profiles, and files in FILESDIR
> other than patches (like init scripts)?
>
> c) Should these lines be removed in one go, or should we enable a
> repoman check and have them fade out over time?
>
> d) Should git expansion of $Id$ be enabled (i.e., ident in git
> attributes)?
If $Id$ is to be kept, I think point "d" needs further clarification:
in what contexts should ident expansion be enabled?
At rsync generation time?
In the development repo? (via .gitattributes).
Enabling expansion in some places but not others may cause some issues
that would necessitate further work to prevent "$Id: xxxxxxx $"
strings from being committed in the development repo accidentally.
This might mean a repoman check and/or a git hook.
I would highly suggest the council familiarize themselves with the git
ident attribute from the gitattributes man page before making any
decision here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12
2017-02-27 17:36 ` Mike Gilbert
@ 2017-02-27 18:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-02-27 23:41 ` William Hubbs
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Ulrich Mueller @ 2017-02-27 18:16 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 970 bytes --]
>>>>> On Mon, 27 Feb 2017, Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> d) Should git expansion of $Id$ be enabled (i.e., ident in git
>> attributes)?
> If $Id$ is to be kept, I think point "d" needs further clarification:
> in what contexts should ident expansion be enabled?
> At rsync generation time?
> In the development repo? (via .gitattributes).
> Enabling expansion in some places but not others may cause some issues
> that would necessitate further work to prevent "$Id: xxxxxxx $"
> strings from being committed in the development repo accidentally.
> This might mean a repoman check and/or a git hook.
Right, there are many paths to insanity there. That's why we should get
rid of the whole thing altogether.
A content tracker should faithfully keep track of the files committed,
but not modify their contents. Even CVS didn't reduce $Id: something$
to $Id$, but kept the original version in the repository [1].
Ulrich
[1] http://cvsman.com/cvs-1.12.12/cvs_99.php#SEC99
[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12
2017-02-27 18:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
@ 2017-02-27 23:41 ` William Hubbs
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: William Hubbs @ 2017-02-27 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-project
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 505 bytes --]
On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 07:16:45PM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Right, there are many paths to insanity there. That's why we should get
> rid of the whole thing altogether.
I am strongly with ulm on this, we should get rid of $Id$ expansion
altogether, especially since there is a way to generate the hashes that
$Id$ would create from the command line.
If folks want to use the hashes in a work flow some how they can, but
they definitely do not belong in the ebuilds.
William
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-02-27 23:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-02-27 16:05 [gentoo-project] call for agenda items, council meeting Mar 12 William Hubbs
2017-02-27 17:09 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-02-27 17:36 ` Mike Gilbert
2017-02-27 18:16 ` Ulrich Mueller
2017-02-27 23:41 ` William Hubbs
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox