3:49 p.m.
If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend), the
datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the package
building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in process)?
If so, mainly the git move, will we as users/testers/etc notice any
changes - via emails sent out, koji and the like - or is it all mostly
behind the scenes and package maintainers and the like will be the ones
who are affected?
Guess a summary of what to expect once it's all GO?
--
Mike Chambers
Madisonville, KY
"Best lil town on Earth!"
3:57 p.m.
Mike Chambers wrote:
If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
the datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the
package building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in
process)?
Only the former is taking place now. A move from cvs to git is being
tested but is not imminent. I'm sure that it will be hard to miss
once that change is ready and implemented.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A lawyer was visiting a farmer on business, when he stepped out of his
Mercedes in the farmyard he stepped into a cow dropping. Looking down
he cried "my god I'm melting!"
4:07 p.m.
On 12/14/2009 04:57 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
> If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
> the datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the
> package building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in
> process)?
Only the former is taking place now. A move from cvs to git is being
tested but is not imminent. I'm sure that it will be hard to miss
once that change is ready and implemented.
If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in some
capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt and painful.
Jeff
4:31 p.m.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in
some capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt
and painful.
Perhaps. But git-cvsserver is a rather limited crutch that I can't
imagine anyone wanting to spend much time on, just to let folks
continue to use cvs commands directly.
Who knows though, maybe there are more people that actually like cvs
than I think and they'll volunteer to implement and run such a
service.
--
Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L'hypocrisie est un hommage que le vice rend à la vertu.
[Hypocrisy is the tribute which vice pays to virtue.]
-- Francois, Duc de La Rochefoucauld, Réflexions ou sentences et
maximes morales
6:55 p.m.
On 12/14/2009 05:31 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in
> some capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt
> and painful.
Perhaps. But git-cvsserver is a rather limited crutch that I can't
imagine anyone wanting to spend much time on, just to let folks
continue to use cvs commands directly.
Who knows though, maybe there are more people that actually like cvs
than I think and they'll volunteer to implement and run such a
service.
I think of it less as a question of /liking/ CVS, and more an admission
that a global workflow change has real costs for each individual developer.
A "flag day"-style transition is clean and efficient, but often locks
out developers who are not able to march in lock-step with the
transition schedule.
I am very pro-git (naturally, being a kernel developer) and want this
switch, but it nonetheless means my home-written scripts for maintaining
related project packages (cld, chunkd, tabled) must be updated and
tested. Even without local script updates, developers have to learn new
stuff just to keep functioning at the same level as before.
Jeff
9:23 p.m.
On Mon, 2009-12-14 at 19:55 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
I think of it less as a question of /liking/ CVS, and more an
admission
that a global workflow change has real costs for each individual developer.
A "flag day"-style transition is clean and efficient, but often locks
out developers who are not able to march in lock-step with the
transition schedule.
I am very pro-git (naturally, being a kernel developer) and want this
switch, but it nonetheless means my home-written scripts for maintaining
related project packages (cld, chunkd, tabled) must be updated and
tested. Even without local script updates, developers have to learn new
stuff just to keep functioning at the same level as before.
Because we are not just moving source control backends, but also
changing workflow, a cvs gateway to the git server wouldn't get you very
far, unless it's a pretty hacked up gateway. If somebody wants to work
on a gateway that's cool, I'm not considering it a blocker to rolling
out the change, once we have a working proof of concept and a solid
migration plan blessed by FESCo.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
2 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:31 PM, Todd Zullinger <tmz(a)pobox.com> wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> If done right, the move to git can still service CVS requests in
> some capacity... that may make the transition a little less abrupt
> and painful.
Perhaps. But git-cvsserver is a rather limited crutch that I can't
imagine anyone wanting to spend much time on, just to let folks
continue to use cvs commands directly.
Actually, the biggest issue with it is the somewhat awkward mapping of
branches to "cvs modules". But the Fedora CVS repo doesn't use cvs
branches AFAIK. (It's not that awkward, but for developers resisting
change... ah, every changed comma is a slight :-) ... ).
And git-submodules support. And that could be added with a modest effort.
Who knows though, maybe there are more people that actually like cvs
than I think and they'll volunteer to implement and run such a
service.
Not so much about liking cvs. In the past, main use cases for
git-cvsserver have been (a) users deeply attached to a heavy IDE
(Eclipse) that doesn't yet have git support and (b) scripts & misc
automation that nobody wants to port.
btw, I designed and co-wrote it :-)
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
2:04 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Martin Langhoff
<martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com> wrote:
branches AFAIK. (It's not that awkward, but for developers
resisting
change... ah, every changed comma is a slight :-) ... ).
To be clear, I mean developers with better things to do with their
time than dealing with an SCM change.
There is never a good time for an SCM change unfortunately, at least
not in any large team.
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
3:43 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 04:57:03PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Mike Chambers wrote:
> If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
> the datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the
> package building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in
> process)?
Only the former is taking place now. A move from cvs to git is being
tested but is not imminent. I'm sure that it will be hard to miss
once that change is ready and implemented.
Is there any documentation about the move to git? In particular I'm
interested in whether the whole of Fedora will be in a single git
repository, or each package will exist in its own git repository.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
3:45 a.m.
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 09:43:33AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 04:57:03PM -0500, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> > If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
> > the datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the
> > package building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in
> > process)?
>
> Only the former is taking place now. A move from cvs to git is being
> tested but is not imminent. I'm sure that it will be hard to miss
> once that change is ready and implemented.
Is there any documentation about the move to git? In particular I'm
interested in whether the whole of Fedora will be in a single git
repository, or each package will exist in its own git repository.
Ignore this -- Jesse answers it lower down.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
libguestfs lets you edit virtual machines. Supports shell scripting,
bindings from many languages. http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/
See what it can do: http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/libguestfs/recipes.html
3:57 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Mike Chambers <mike(a)miketc.net> wrote:
If I understand what is happening now (and over the past weekend),
the
datacenter machines are moving to a new location, AND the package
building is moving from cvs to git (will be, or already in process)?
The move from CVS to Git won't happen until post-F13.
--
Jeff Ollie
5267
days inactive
5268
days old
10 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Jeff Garzik -
Jeffrey Ollie -
Jesse Keating -
Martin Langhoff -
Mike Chambers -
Richard W.M. Jones -
Todd Zullinger