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 ) 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 ; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 5so541960ywm.46 for ; 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: Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 03:04:39 -0700 From: "Alec Warner" Sender: antarus@scriptkitty.com To: "Robert Buchholz" 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: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo SCM discussions 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> <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 wrote: > On Monday 06 October 2008, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 2:50 AM, Thilo Bangert > 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 >