Re: Question about tagging
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 08:50:06PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: And why can't all this be done with s/git/SVN/? All we really need apart from what CVS already provides is atomic commit IDs, to make the maintainers would not tag themselves part easily implementable. I don't see why SVN revision IDs wouldn't be as good as git hashsums for that. In fact, in principle, it could even be done with CVS, but instead of tagging a single revision ID, the build system would have to tag the revision ID it checked out for each file. Having atomic commits just allows dragging around just one revision ID instead of a set of IDs. With sufficient hackery it could be done with either svn or cvs, Kevin'spoint is that svn would require less new hackery than git. I believe he's right about that as svn provides whoe-tree changesets without adding all of the vastly different semantics that git does. OTOH, nobody who hasshown up to do work has shown interest in a centrally managed scm, only dvcs and just as you point out, really it's who's interested in doing the work that matters. Although I will say that the reason that we didn't switch to a different scm years ago was not that no one wanted to do the work but that no one wanted to step on enough people's toes while doing the work. -Toshio pgprwUXCiHr0Q.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
2009/11/19 Jesse Keating jkeat...@redhat.com: On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:32 -0500, Alex Lancaster wrote: Which component would be best to open a trac ticket for this functionality against? It basically needs to be fixed in Makefile.common, but my plan to fix it involves getting rid of CVS all together, and while doing that getting rid of the need for a common/ dir to carry around and update. Exciting times. In your plan, what will be replacing CVS? -- Mat Booth -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 12:02 +, Mat Booth wrote: Exciting times. In your plan, what will be replacing CVS? If I had my way and did it today, git. Each package would be its own module, and each fedora release would be represented by a real branch in the git module. We'd have a userland tool, as part of fedora-packager, that would allow simple commands to clone the module (and get master, which would build things for rawhide), or clone the module and all its release branches and construct a directory layout much like dist-cvs is today. Build commands would be part of fedora-packager, not makefiles in every module. Decisions on where to build the package would be based on what branch is being built from, programatically so that we don't have to keep updating some file somewhere to figure it out. Maintainers would not tag themselves, as the buildsystem would build from git hashsums, and only successful builds would have a human readable tag applied to a given hashsum, and that would be done by the build system. There would be no need to translate %dist values on the local user's system. That's what I got so far, I'm hoping to walk through a typical scenario with folks at FUDCon to see how well my plan stands up. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
Jesse Keating wrote: If I had my way and did it today, git. Each package would be its own module, and each fedora release would be represented by a real branch in the git module. We'd have a userland tool, as part of fedora-packager, that would allow simple commands to clone the module (and get master, which would build things for rawhide), or clone the module and all its release branches and construct a directory layout much like dist-cvs is today. Build commands would be part of fedora-packager, not makefiles in every module. Decisions on where to build the package would be based on what branch is being built from, programatically so that we don't have to keep updating some file somewhere to figure it out. Maintainers would not tag themselves, as the buildsystem would build from git hashsums, and only successful builds would have a human readable tag applied to a given hashsum, and that would be done by the build system. There would be no need to translate %dist values on the local user's system. That's what I got so far, I'm hoping to walk through a typical scenario with folks at FUDCon to see how well my plan stands up. And why can't all this be done with s/git/SVN/? All we really need apart from what CVS already provides is atomic commit IDs, to make the maintainers would not tag themselves part easily implementable. I don't see why SVN revision IDs wouldn't be as good as git hashsums for that. In fact, in principle, it could even be done with CVS, but instead of tagging a single revision ID, the build system would have to tag the revision ID it checked out for each file. Having atomic commits just allows dragging around just one revision ID instead of a set of IDs. Kevin Kofler -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
On Fri, 2009-11-20 at 00:50 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: And why can't all this be done with s/git/SVN/? All we really need apart from what CVS already provides is atomic commit IDs, to make the maintainers would not tag themselves part easily implementable. I don't see why SVN revision IDs wouldn't be as good as git hashsums for that. In fact, in principle, it could even be done with CVS, but instead of tagging a single revision ID, the build system would have to tag the revision ID it checked out for each file. Having atomic commits just allows dragging around just one revision ID instead of a set of IDs. With sufficient hackery it could be done with either svn or cvs, however many of our upstreams are moving or have moved to git, and there is a strong desire for our scm to follow suit. This really will wind up being decided by the person putting in the work to get it done, which at the moment is me. The added benefit of offline operation makes git even more appealing, and while I know you can hack svn into doing something like that, I'd rather go with something that is designed for it. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Question about tagging
I'm trying to build cairomm 1.8.4 in devel, but the tags that I get are dist-f12, and when I try and actually do the build I get an error saying: /usr/bin/koji build dist-f12 'cvs://cvs.fedoraproject.org/cvs/pkgs?rpms/cairomm/devel#cairomm-1_8_4-1_fc12' Usage: koji build [options] target URL (Specify the --help global option for a list of other help options) koji: error: Destination tag dist-f12 is locked make: *** [koji] Error 1 Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag? If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;) ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Jr. wrote: Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote: On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag? If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;) I did. What I generally run is 'cvs -PAd' I even removed the devel directory and re-checked it out by running 'cvs -PAd' in the top level directory. What about the common directory? That's the important one, one level above devel. $ cat cairomm/common/branches|grep devel devel:dist-f13:.fc13:fedora:13 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list That was it. Thanks. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
- == Rick L Vinyard, writes: - Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:53:16 -0700, Jr. wrote: Tom \spot\ Callaway wrote: On 11/18/2009 10:29 AM, Rick L. Vinyard, Jr. wrote: Shouldn't I be getting f13 tags with make tag? If you run: cvs update -d in the top level checkout directory, you will. ;) I did. What I generally run is 'cvs -PAd' I even removed the devel directory and re-checked it out by running 'cvs -PAd' in the top level directory. What about the common directory? That's the important one, one level above devel. $ cat cairomm/common/branches|grep devel devel:dist-f13:.fc13:fedora:13 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list That was it. Thanks. This has bitten me (and other users judging from the earlier reports here) before. It would be better if make tag was to check that the common directory that it checked for branches was up to date *before* allowing make tag to proceed. This is the kind of thing that is very easy to overlook when you are away from maintaining packages for a while and should be automated. Which component would be best to open a trac ticket for this functionality against? Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Question about tagging
On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 20:32 -0500, Alex Lancaster wrote: Which component would be best to open a trac ticket for this functionality against? It basically needs to be fixed in Makefile.common, but my plan to fix it involves getting rid of CVS all together, and while doing that getting rid of the need for a common/ dir to carry around and update. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
