9:06 a.m.
Following is the list of topics that will be discussed in the FESCo
meeting today at 18:00UTC (1:00pm EST) in #fedora-meeting on
irc.freenode.net.
Links to all tickets below can be found at:
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
= Init =
#topic Welcome new FESCo members
= Followups =
#topic #712 need update kBuild on F15
.fesco 712
#topic #470 Look at buildid repo request from jkratoch
.fesco 470
= New business =
#topic #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming
.fesco 715
= Fedora Engineering Services tickets =
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-engineering-services/report/6
= Open Floor =
For more complete details, please visit each individual ticket. The
eport of the agenda items can be found at
https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/report/9
If you would like to add something to this agenda, you can reply to
this e-mail, file a new ticket at https://fedorahosted.org/fesco,
e-mail me directly, or bring it up at the end of the meeting, during
the open floor topic. Note that added topics may be deferred until
the following meeting.
1:24 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
===================================
#fedora-meeting: FESCO (2012-12-12)
===================================
Meeting started by sgallagh at 18:01:16 UTC. The full logs are available
at
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2011-12-12/fesco.2011-12-...
.
Meeting summary
---------------
* init process (sgallagh, 18:01:17)
* Welcome new FESCo members (sgallagh, 18:03:52)
* AGREED: Set up a whenisgood and revisit next week (sgallagh,
18:10:04)
* ACTION: limburgher will set up the whenisgood and create a FESCo
ticket (sgallagh, 18:11:33)
* #712 need update kBuild on F15 (sgallagh, 18:12:15)
* ACTION: limburgher to update kBuild with his provenpackager powers
(sgallagh, 18:17:00)
* #470 Look at buildid repo request from jkratoch (sgallagh, 18:18:40)
* AGREED: Throw this over the wall to Infra. FESCo takes no action.
(sgallagh, 18:24:25)
* #714 Feature request F17 D2 programming (sgallagh, 18:26:32)
* AGREED: D2 Programming accepted as a Feature for Fedora 17
(sgallagh, 18:29:25)
* #716 Thin Provisioning -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ThinProvisioning (sgallagh,
18:29:35)
* AGREED: Thin Provisioning is accepted as a Feature for Fedora 17
(sgallagh, 18:33:21)
* #717 Password Quality Checking -
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/PasswordQualityChecking
(sgallagh, 18:33:30)
* AGREED: New password quality mechanism is approved as a Feature for
Fedora 17 (sgallagh, 18:42:43)
* #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
18:43:02)
* LINK:
http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/107577
suggests 2009/03 (mitr, 18:52:20)
* AGREED: ondrejj advised to make sure he understands the processes
before using his privileges in the future (sgallagh, 19:06:39)
* ACTION: mitr to advise ondrejj on process (sgallagh, 19:07:03)
* Engineering Service Tickets (sgallagh, 19:08:43)
* Open Floor (sgallagh, 19:09:37)
* ACTION: nirik to update the FESCo mailing list for membership
changes (sgallagh, 19:18:51)
Meeting ended at 19:22:08 UTC.
Action Items
------------
* limburgher will set up the whenisgood and create a FESCo ticket
* limburgher to update kBuild with his provenpackager powers
* mitr to advise ondrejj on process
* nirik to update the FESCo mailing list for membership changes
Action Items, by person
-----------------------
* limburgher
* limburgher will set up the whenisgood and create a FESCo ticket
* limburgher to update kBuild with his provenpackager powers
* mitr
* mitr to advise ondrejj on process
* nirik
* nirik to update the FESCo mailing list for membership changes
* **UNASSIGNED**
* (none)
People Present (lines said)
---------------------------
* sgallagh (126)
* nirik (90)
* limburgher (63)
* t8m (42)
* mitr (39)
* mmaslano (21)
* zodbot (10)
* abadger1999 (2)
* snitm (2)
* mjg59 (0)
* pjones (0)
* notting (0)
Generated by `MeetBot`_ 0.1.4
.. _`MeetBot`: http://wiki.debian.org/MeetBot
2:16 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
* #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
18:43:02)
There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
be added to that list?
- Ken
2:21 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:16 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
> 18:43:02)
There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
be added to that list?
Not a terrible idea. ".diff" should also be a candidate if we go that
route.
Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
additional exceptions as they arise.
2:21 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 15:21:11 -0500,
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
additional exceptions as they arise.
.tgz is another common extension.
2:24 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 15:21:11 -0500,
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
> allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
> additional exceptions as they arise.
.tgz is another common extension.
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
I've seen .tar as well.
-J
--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love
-d. bowie
2:24 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 15:21:11 -0500,
Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
> allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
> additional exceptions as they arise.
.tgz is another common extension.
Yeah, a whitelist could get tedious quickly. I was just thinking of
blacklisting stuff like .rpm and .patch.
- Ken
6:05 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:24 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Wolff III
<bruno(a)wolff.to> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 15:21:11 -0500,
> Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
>> allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
>> additional exceptions as they arise.
>
> .tgz is another common extension.
Yeah, a whitelist could get tedious quickly. I was just thinking of
blacklisting stuff like .rpm and .patch.
throw tar.xz on the list.
In general it seems like we come up with a new compression format every
few years (gzip, bzip2, lzma, xz...), and so many exceptions have been
suggested here, that it does seem like a whitelist is a bad idea. If
anything, given that the point of the lookaside cache as I understand it
is that git doesn't really handle large binaries very well, it might
make more sense to go with a size threshold than a file type or
extension list.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora
http://www.happyassassin.net
2:34 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:21 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:16 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
> > 18:43:02)
>
> There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
> extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
> be added to that list?
Not a terrible idea. ".diff" should also be a candidate if we go that
route.
Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
additional exceptions as they arise.
What about running a 'file' command on the stuff and if the output
contains 'text' then allow upload only with some kind of --force option?
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
2:52 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:34:12 +0100
Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:21 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:16 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> > <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
> > > 18:43:02)
> >
> > There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
> > extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could
> > ".patch" be added to that list?
>
> Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
> allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
> additional exceptions as they arise.
What about running a 'file' command on the stuff and if the output
contains 'text' then allow upload only with some kind of --force
option?
And what about separately shipped license files, documentation and so
on?
Not a valid option.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
3:06 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:52 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:34:12 +0100
Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:21 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:16 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> > > <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
> > > > 18:43:02)
> > >
> > > There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
> > > extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could
> > > ".patch" be added to that list?
> >
> > Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
> > allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
> > additional exceptions as they arise.
>
> What about running a 'file' command on the stuff and if the output
> contains 'text' then allow upload only with some kind of --force
> option?
And what about separately shipped license files, documentation and so
on?
Not a valid option.
What's wrong with using --force option for such files? These are not
that common so that should not be much hassle. Also if they are small I
do not see any reason why not to put them directly into the git
repository.
Or maybe the condition for need of the force flag could be modified to
not require it for files larger than some size (for example 100kBytes)
even if 'file' outputs that they are a text files.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
12:25 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:06:44 +0100
Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:52 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:34:12 +0100
> Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > What about running a 'file' command on the stuff and if the output
> > contains 'text' then allow upload only with some kind of --force
> > option?
>
> And what about separately shipped license files, documentation and
> so on?
>
> Not a valid option.
What's wrong with using --force option for such files? These are not
that common so that should not be much hassle. Also if they are small
I do not see any reason why not to put them directly into the git
repository.
Or maybe the condition for need of the force flag could be modified to
not require it for files larger than some size (for example 100kBytes)
even if 'file' outputs that they are a text files.
Gah.. Nothing, obviously. Somehow I must have skipped the --force part.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola(a)fedoraproject.org
11:03 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:06 +0100, Tomas Mraz wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:52 +0200, Jussi Lehtola wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2011 21:34:12 +0100
> Tomas Mraz <tmraz(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 15:21 -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 13:16 -0700, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen Gallagher
> > > > <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming
(sgallagh,
> > > > > 18:43:02)
> > > >
> > > > There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
> > > > extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could
> > > > ".patch" be added to that list?
> > >
> > > Of course, a whitelist might be a better idea. Maybe we only
> > > allow .tar.gz, .tar.bz2 and .zip to be uploaded this way and make
> > > additional exceptions as they arise.
> >
> > What about running a 'file' command on the stuff and if the output
> > contains 'text' then allow upload only with some kind of --force
> > option?
>
> And what about separately shipped license files, documentation and so
> on?
>
> Not a valid option.
What's wrong with using --force option for such files? These are not
that common so that should not be much hassle. Also if they are small I
do not see any reason why not to put them directly into the git
repository.
Or maybe the condition for need of the force flag could be modified to
not require it for files larger than some size (for example 100kBytes)
even if 'file' outputs that they are a text files.
I created RFE bugzilla
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=767264
with proof of concept patch.
--
Tomas Mraz
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.
Turkish proverb
2:26 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On 12/12/2011 10:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
be added to that list?
Please don't do that. In my opinion the lookaside cache is the proper
place for patches for which the Fedora package is not the upstream, for
example ones downloaded from web SCM or other URLs.
2:29 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:26 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On 12/12/2011 10:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
> There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
> extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
> be added to that list?
Please don't do that. In my opinion the lookaside cache is the proper
place for patches for which the Fedora package is not the upstream, for
example ones downloaded from web SCM or other URLs.
This is wrong. Patches should never be in the lookaside cache, because
it is very difficult to view them. Patches in git can easily be glanced
at in gitweb. The lookaside cache is only really viewable by cloning the
package and doing a 'fedpkg prep'.
Putting patches in the lookaside cache is essentially hiding them, and
that's poor behavior in an open-source project.
2:47 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On 12/12/2011 10:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Mon, 2011-12-12 at 22:26 +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 10:16 PM, Ken Dreyer wrote:
>
>> There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
>> extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
>> be added to that list?
>
> Please don't do that. In my opinion the lookaside cache is the proper
> place for patches for which the Fedora package is not the upstream, for
> example ones downloaded from web SCM or other URLs.
This is wrong.
Your opinion may differ, but no, it's not wrong. They're upstream files.
Patches should never be in the lookaside cache, because
it is very difficult to view them.
IMO if that'd be a consideration, the lookaside cache shouldn't really
exist at all, everything should be in git instead.
Patches in git can easily be glanced at in gitweb.
Patches in external URLs can be easily glanced just by accessing the
external URL which is in the specfile.
3:22 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:47:53PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
On 12/12/2011 10:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> Patches should never be in the lookaside cache, because
> it is very difficult to view them.
IMO if that'd be a consideration, the lookaside cache shouldn't really
exist at all, everything should be in git instead.
To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into
version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
So I think for me, lookaside isn't there to separate data from upstream from
data generated by Fedora -- it's there to supplement the SCM when a file is
not suitable for direct inclusion into the SCM.
-Toshio
3:46 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On 12/12/2011 04:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
So I think for me, lookaside isn't there to separate data from
upstream from
data generated by Fedora -- it's there to supplement the SCM when a file is
not suitable for direct inclusion into the SCM.
I agree, and the tooling we're building into the Fedora Packager webapp
assumes that patches live in git, not in the lookaside. (To be fair, its
not the end of the world if this isn't happening on a specific package,
but it does mean that Fedora Packager won't know about those patches in
the lookaside, nor is there a sane way to reliably account for them.)
There are any number of ways to distinguish upstream provided patches
from Fedora-local patches, I just don't think the lookaside is the best
way, with the possible exception of big compressed patchsets (e.g.
patch-3.2-rc5.xz for kernel).
~tom
==
Fedora Project
3:48 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On 12/12/2011 04:46 PM, Tom Callaway wrote:
On 12/12/2011 04:22 PM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> So I think for me, lookaside isn't there to separate data from upstream from
> data generated by Fedora -- it's there to supplement the SCM when a file is
> not suitable for direct inclusion into the SCM.
I agree, and the tooling we're building into the Fedora Packager webapp
s/Packager/Packages/g
I'm going to get this wrong a thousand times before we launch, and a
thousand more times after that, apologies.
~tom
==
Fedora Project
1:06 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:47:53PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 10:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>
> > Patches should never be in the lookaside cache, because
> > it is very difficult to view them.
>
> IMO if that'd be a consideration, the lookaside cache shouldn't really
> exist at all, everything should be in git instead.
>
To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into
version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was.
I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the
typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of
binary data in each release.)
--b.
So I think for me, lookaside isn't there to separate data from upstream from
data generated by Fedora -- it's there to supplement the SCM when a file is
not suitable for direct inclusion into the SCM.
-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
1:12 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:06 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
> conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
> a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into
> version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
> terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
> machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
> contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was.
I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the
typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of
binary data in each release.)
Nearly all packages are released as a compressed tarball. So any change
in the package is likely to result in a delta of the binary image that
is close enough to 100% as makes no difference.
2:53 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:12:30PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:06 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
> > conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
> > a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into
> > version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
> > terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
> > machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
> > contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
>
> I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was.
>
> I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the
> typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of
> binary data in each release.)
Nearly all packages are released as a compressed tarball. So any change
in the package is likely to result in a delta of the binary image that
is close enough to 100% as makes no difference.
You'd want to uncompress before checking in. Or even expand before
checking in--"git diff" and "git grep" would then be a lot more
useful.
You'd no longer have a copy of exactly what you downloaded, but someone
with a copy of the download could mechanically verify that you'd
imported the same content.
You could still keep the .tar.gz in the lookaside cache, but you
wouldn't normally need to go look at it.
--b.
4:34 p.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 9:53 PM, J. Bruce Fields <bfields(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 02:12:30PM -0500, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:06 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> > > To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
> > > conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
> > > a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything
into
> > > version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
> > > terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
> > > machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
> > > contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
> >
> > I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was.
> >
> > I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the
> > typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of
> > binary data in each release.)
>
> Nearly all packages are released as a compressed tarball. So any change
> in the package is likely to result in a delta of the binary image that
> is close enough to 100% as makes no difference.
You'd want to uncompress before checking in. Or even expand before
checking in--"git diff" and "git grep" would then be a lot more
useful.
You'd no longer have a copy of exactly what you downloaded, but someone
with a copy of the download could mechanically verify that you'd
imported the same content.
You could still keep the .tar.gz in the lookaside cache, but you
wouldn't normally need to go look at it.
What's the benefit of all the overhead (=growing size of the repos and
doing this as an extra step, not just uploading the tarball)?
Adding a VCS key [1] to the spec, so you can look at the uncompressed
source, which all of "vcs diff/grep", makes more sense to me. (This
only assumes upstreams repo will stay reachable.)
Unpackaging the tarball and adding a lot of data to the git repository
only makes it bigger and bigger and you can't really compare that git
repo to the upstream one (Maybe sharing some patches, but I guess no
pull etc will work).
Greetings,
Tom
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Walters/Packaging_VCS_key_proposal
3:57 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
Dne 12.12.2011 21:16, Ken Dreyer napsal(a):
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Stephen
Gallagher<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> * #715 Provenpackager education/status/brainstorming (sgallagh,
> 18:43:02)
There was some discussion a while back about preventing certain
extensions from being uploaded to the lookaside cache. Could ".patch"
be added to that list?
- Ken
".spec" should be added to black list especially.
Vit
9:21 a.m.
New subject: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCO meeting (2011-12-12 at 1800 UTC)
Just to chime in here, this is a GREAT place for someone to
contribute. ;)
See:
https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/ticket/2680
test implementations, patches, etc all welcome.
kevin
4511
days inactive
4512
days old
24 comments
15 participants
participants (15)
-
Adam Williamson -
Bill Nottingham -
Bruno Wolff III -
J. Bruce Fields -
Jon Ciesla -
Ken Dreyer -
Kevin Fenzi -
Stephen Gallagher -
Susi Lehtola -
Thomas Spura -
Tom Callaway -
Tomas Mraz -
Toshio Kuratomi -
Ville Skyttä -
Vít Ondruch