From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1G4ncU-0006b3-Ts for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:44:23 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k6NNgfXs018420; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:42:41 GMT Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6NNZdhw023469 for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 23:35:39 GMT Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id m19so1261635nfc for ; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:35:39 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=hIt3E+Dui5hLLkuSauOnPjO1lAWBxBF4oKG9P8su1D8V5RfNfdaCwEOy9HKM/lnE5lDcymUeusvsHx7RBHxsjqggZODWxPj/roEebVC0yCIa1bkGTvtJWTFj3LyWeLtq2nTfha3KMibVURaZkWMXFxgm9ZVCEbJBdp2Z9DuDSiE= Received: by 10.78.117.10 with SMTP id p10mr1270507huc; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.78.122.4 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Jul 2006 16:35:39 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <9b1675090607231635g69e56048h2318c1492d9a1c7b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2006 17:35:39 -0600 From: "Trenton Adams" To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Portage Storage using SVN In-Reply-To: <20060723133701.02d093e7.hilse@web.de> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <9b1675090607230142m295cf441hda16b6c0e29b08f6@mail.gmail.com> <20060723133701.02d093e7.hilse@web.de> X-Archives-Salt: 43319bfd-bcf9-4b65-87e2-cb7d4b2c9c92 X-Archives-Hash: fc878f276f5bb21bdbd1e7203855aea1 On 7/23/06, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600 > "Trenton Adams" wrote: > > > I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the > > arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and > > someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up > > with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them > > down, but hey, it's worth a try. > > #1: > You're aware that there's a CVS for portage, aren't you? I'm still not > quite sure if you are suggesting using SVN for the portage mirrors and > if you are suggesting that users also have a full SVN history on the > clients, too? No, not a full history, just a tag history. > > > PROBLEM 1 > > [...] > > PROBLEM 2 > > [...] > > PROBLEM 3 > > [...] > > Well, are those really problems at all? I mean, isn't it easy to > overcome them? Is it worth dedicating time and work into that svn thing? I'm not sure, is it? Is there scripts already out there to overcome the problems suggested? If there are, I would sure appreciate knowing about them. :) It could be a lack of my understanding how the portage downgrade process works. But if you downgrade a package, will it downgrade all the packages depending on that version as well? > > > POTENTIAL ISSUES > > Now, I'm not entirely sure of the performance implications of > > subversion for this purpose. So, that would definitely have to either > > be tested, or someone would have to talk with the subversion folks to > > know if it would be a problem for thousands of users to access > > subversion in readonly mode. > > Well, of course! There's definately a reason to use rsync. > > > It would certainly be annoying for a > > developer to go "svn commit", and have to wait for half an hour > > because everyone else is updating their local copies. But, that could > > be solved by mirrors only getting updated once every day, at 12 > > midnight. > > Oh, yeah. Your midnight, my midnight? It would definately be annoying > to make a small glitch and have to wait >24hrs until the fix for that > gets promoted. The "problem" you mentioned that at some points there > are slightly errorneous ebuilds in portage or minor inconsistencies can > only be fixed by promoting updates fast. That's true, and I suppose that's not quite as good as what exists right now. But does gentoo really have less than 24 hour bug fix turn arounds? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list