From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-scm+bounces-17-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Kn9Qn-00024O-NM
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:04:42 +0000
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16053E02C1;
Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:04:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (yw-out-1718.google.com [74.125.46.158])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCEEE02C1
for <gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:04:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so541960ywm.46
for <gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.205.20 with SMTP id c20mr3593817ang.19.1223373879814;
Tue, 07 Oct 2008 03:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.94.12 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 03:04:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b41005390810070304r3d535c9as39b70caf2c5f2f79@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 03:04:39 -0700
From: "Alec Warner" <antarus@gentoo.org>
Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com
To: "Robert Buchholz" <rbu@gentoo.org>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS
Cc: gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org
In-Reply-To: <200810061911.03213.rbu@gentoo.org>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-scm+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-scm+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-scm+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo SCM discussions <gentoo-scm.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-scm@gentoo.org
X-BeenThere: gentoo-scm@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <200810052359.49834.bangert@gentoo.org>
<200810061151.03266.bangert@gentoo.org>
<b41005390810060841j55b0641g89815d146654ee17@mail.gmail.com>
<200810061911.03213.rbu@gentoo.org>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: dcdcb3165fcdb391
X-Archives-Salt: 31c63035-0e67-4531-a65d-c80024c0c3c6
X-Archives-Hash: f5c99cac85941674b1198fd76e15f353
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Robert Buchholz <rbu@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert <bangert@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> > i am not opposed to the idea of layout changes; its just not my
>> > personal itch (right now). and quite frankly - i dont see anybody
>> > else here, whose itch it is...
>>
>> It is mine ;)
>>
>> > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our repo
>> > layout is not!
>>
>> I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I
>> think is better).
>
> What problems are we trying to solve?
1) People commiting things into a shared space that are not widely utilized.
2) People commiting personal ebuilds into a shared space because it is
easier to use (syncs by default; no overlays). 2 is a specific subset
of 1; but 2 really pisses me off (moreso because I have done it and
felt shitty afterward).
3) People commiting things into a shared space that they have no real
intention of maintaining.
> Why is the exherbo approach better?
Mostly they are good at telling people to fuck off. I like that.
I think a tree with 13000 packages in it is less useful when only a
small percentage are maintained well.
If you want poorly maintained ebuilds you can look to the community
for that often enough.
>
> More specific questions:
> * How fine-grained do you want the repositories to be?
I expect this to evolve over time.
> * Who controls access?
In one proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be a combination of a
number of smaller repositories. Anything in gentoo-x86 would be
'officially supported.' Running QA tests on the smaller repositories
presents a problem as well as cross-repo dependencies (most developers
would need the repositories for their deps installed. I cannot say
that this is a very good approach but it avoids the whole 'portage
doesn't have repository support' argument.
In another proposal; Gentoo. Gentoo-x86 would be one of many
repositories and the package manager would provide management
capability. Repositories provided by default by gentoo would be
'officially supported' in this scheme.
> * How is QA being done?
repoman? gentoo-commits? I would imagine similar to now.
> * Who defines what is "officially supported"
> (right now it is "in the tree, not p.masked")
See the above.
> * What about global data (the non-cache files in metadata, eclasses)?
In the former scheme it would need to be shared across all repos that
are being integrated into gentoo-x86 (possibly its own repo for
profiles/).
In the other scheme each repo would be on its own (mucho duplication).
>
> Robert
>