2024-01-30T23:20:52Z Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org>: > On 2024/01/30 22:58, Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote: >> Subject says it all. I'm wondering if using the git conversion of the ports >> tree[0] is regarded as a good alternative to CVS for working with ports. Are >> the conversion updates frequent enough to not cause any issues? Do any of >> you porters use it instead of CVS? Any issues? >> >> For the record, I've been using CVS just fine without any problems. I just >> feel more comfortable with git. >> >> [0] https://github.com/openbsd/ports >> >> -- >> Johannes Thyssen Tishman >> https://www.thyssentishman.com > > They are fairly frequent (currently run hourly, though this may change > if they start taking too long to run), but don't include the most recent > commit (CVS commits are not atomic, and the conversion tool is looking > for a different commit before it will treat the previous one as done) > so at certain times (especially during tree locks for release) you can > be waiting a while for a commit to show up. > > Also there are no tools which successfully managed to convert branches > and tags in the OpenBSD CVS repo (we tried everything we could find > at the time when it was set up, everything which handles them had > some problem or other, and the range of software has not really expanded > since) - so the git conversion is limited to dealing with -current only > and there's no way to work with -stable or releases.
Thanks for clarifying Stuart. I guess I'll just test it for a while and see if I run into any issues. I'll keep an eye for those you mentioned though and report back if needed. Regarding the branches issue, I really only use the ports tree for porting new software and maintaining a couple of ports, so -current is enough. Thanks again!
