5:33 p.m.
Hi List
I have two questions
Koji can support SVN at the moment?
why not?
Oscar
Palma Linux Mexico
1:48 p.m.
On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:33:59 Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho wrote:
Hi List
I have two questions
Koji can support SVN at the moment?
Not currently.
why not?
The source control mechanism used by the Fedora project for it's packages is
currently CVS. It also looks like that any move away from CVS would be
toward a distributed SCM such as git or hg due to the things a distributed
SCM offers over CVS/SVN.
However patches to Koji that enable svn support won't be turned away, provided
they're good (:
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
9:33 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 14:48 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:33:59 Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho
wrote:
> Hi List
>
> I have two questions
>
> Koji can support SVN at the moment?
Not currently.
> why not?
The source control mechanism used by the Fedora project for it's packages is
currently CVS. It also looks like that any move away from CVS would be
toward a distributed SCM such as git or hg due to the things a distributed
SCM offers over CVS/SVN.
However patches to Koji that enable svn support won't be turned away, provided
they're good (:
There are patches for Koji attached to this ticket:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/koji/ticket/15
I can't comment as to the quality, as I haven't tested them...
Jeff
9:23 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 21:33 -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
On Sat, 2007-06-30 at 14:48 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Thursday 28 June 2007 18:33:59 Oscar Victorio Calixto Bacho wrote:
> > Hi List
> >
> > I have two questions
> >
> > Koji can support SVN at the moment?
>
> Not currently.
>
> > why not?
>
> The source control mechanism used by the Fedora project for it's packages is
> currently CVS. It also looks like that any move away from CVS would be
> toward a distributed SCM such as git or hg due to the things a distributed
> SCM offers over CVS/SVN.
modifications are required to your Makefile.common to support svn. as
you may know, switching to svn eliminates the make tag step in the build
process. i can email you the Makefile.common i'm using if you need it.
> However patches to Koji that enable svn support won't be
turned away, provided
> they're good (:
There are patches for Koji attached to this ticket:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/koji/ticket/15
I can't comment as to the quality, as I haven't tested them...
i posted an updated patch against koji 1.2.2 here:
https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/koji/attachment/ticket/15/koji-...
they work for me; i'll let others judge their "quality".
rob.
9:26 a.m.
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:23:44 rob myers wrote:
modifications are required to your Makefile.common to support svn.
as
you may know, switching to svn eliminates the make tag step in the build
process. i can email you the Makefile.common i'm using if you need it.
Curious, do you no longer have a reference to the module at the time the build
was done? While a cvs tag is convenient to tell the buildsystem what bits to
pull, a named tag in general is convenient for humans to easily get the
content at that point in time too.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
9:49 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 10:26 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:23:44 rob myers wrote:
> modifications are required to your Makefile.common to support svn. as
> you may know, switching to svn eliminates the make tag step in the build
> process. i can email you the Makefile.common i'm using if you need it.
Curious, do you no longer have a reference to the module at the time the build
was done? While a cvs tag is convenient to tell the buildsystem what bits to
pull, a named tag in general is convenient for humans to easily get the
content at that point in time too.
For subversion, a path plus a revision number would be sufficient. Tags
in subversion are really just a convention. Unless you put some code
into a pre-commit hook to prohibit it, tags can be modified just like
any other directory in subversion. Unfortunately the same can be said
of CVS tags.
Jeff
9:51 a.m.
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:49:54 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
For subversion, a path plus a revision number would be sufficient.
Tags
in subversion are really just a convention. Unless you put some code
into a pre-commit hook to prohibit it, tags can be modified just like
any other directory in subversion. Unfortunately the same can be said
of CVS tags.
Yes, I'm wondering why suddenly it would be not necessary to provide this
convenience to developers, so that they'd have to guess at which path/rev#
was used to build a particular nvr.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
10:16 a.m.
On Mon, 2007-07-02 at 10:51 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 02 July 2007 10:49:54 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> For subversion, a path plus a revision number would be sufficient. Tags
> in subversion are really just a convention. Unless you put some code
> into a pre-commit hook to prohibit it, tags can be modified just like
> any other directory in subversion. Unfortunately the same can be said
> of CVS tags.
Yes, I'm wondering why suddenly it would be not necessary to provide this
convenience to developers, so that they'd have to guess at which path/rev#
was used to build a particular nvr.
we have only svn revision numbers. noone here seems to miss the nvr
tag. in other words, it is a convenience we haven't really needed or
used, and of course YMMV.
rob.
6142
days inactive
6146
days old
buildsys@lists.fedoraproject.org
7 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jeffrey Ollie -
Jesse Keating -
Oscar Bacho -
Rob Myers