Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 05:29:09PM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: | On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:56:55 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | wrote: | | I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a | | quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task. | | Workload isn't the issue. It's number of files. And not only the number of files... the workflow here doesn't fit in a distributed enviroment. Cheers, Ferdy -- Fernando J. Pereda GarcimartÃn Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git) 20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4 pgp79Jjh6Ig20.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 16:56:55 +0100 Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: | I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a | quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task. Workload isn't the issue. It's number of files. -- Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain) Mail: ciaranm at gentoo.org Web : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
Gcc has also moved to subversion... On 12/10/05, Jason Stubbs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote: > > svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed. > > KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course. > > -- > Jason Stubbs > -- > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list > > -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
On Sunday 11 December 2005 00:56, Luca Barbato wrote: > svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed. KDE uses subversion, depending on what you call big of course. -- Jason Stubbs -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
On 12/10/05, Luca Barbato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kurt Lieber wrote: > > > CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable, > > presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+ > > years. Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other > > VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and > > scalability which are the most important characteristics by far. > > I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a > quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task. In case someone is interested, there was a presentation at EuroBSDCon about switching FreeBSD to Mercurial. the paper: http://www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/paper.pdf the slides: http://www.keltia.net/EuroBSDCon/slides.pdf regards, Benoit -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
> As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's > call. If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain > opposed > to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of > assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB, > 216,000+ files and counting) KDE moved to Subversion earlier this year, with a few million lines of source code and hundreds of branches and tags. It did it flawlessly and maintained over 400,000 commit history items. I don't think stability is the biggest hurdle here. I think the conversion process will be - they had to write a lot of code from scratch to handle maintaining all of that history (the stock cvs2svn wasn't robust enough), and they had to run the conversion process a number of times, find the bugs, rework their conversion code, and rerun. It was a lengthy process (a few weeks I believe). It's going to require someone to actually write the conversion code and provide a proof of concept conversion. If anyone's up to the challenge, I imagine contacting their sysadmins would be a good start. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
> As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's > call. If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain > opposed > to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of > assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB, > 216,000+ files and counting) KDE moved to Subversion earlier this year, with a few million lines of source code and hundreds of branches and tags. It did it flawlessly and maintained over 400,000 commit history items. I don't think stability is the biggest hurdle here. I think the conversion process will be - they had to write a lot of code from scratch to handle maintaining all of that history (the stock cvs2svn wasn't robust enough), and they had to run the conversion process a number of times, find the bugs, rework their conversion code, and rerun. It was a lengthy process (a few weeks I believe). It's going to require someone to actually write the conversion code and provide a proof of concept conversion. If anyone's up to the challenge, I imagine contacting their sysadmins would be a good start. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
Kurt Lieber wrote: CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable, presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+ years. Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and scalability which are the most important characteristics by far. I'd suggest having a look at git or mercurial, they are tested on a quite big workload and they seems good enough for the task. svn so far was good but I don't know which big projects had it deployed. lu -- Luca Barbato Gentoo/linux Developer Gentoo/PPC Operational Leader http://dev.gentoo.org/~lu_zero -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
On Sat, Dec 10, 2005 at 11:52:33AM + or thereabouts, Ian Leitch wrote: > For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand. > > What are your thoughts on this, infra? As for moving packages by hand vs. using a tool, that's not really infra's call. If you were asking about CVS vs. SVN, I have been and remain opposed to using SVN for gentoo-x86 until someone can offer a whole lot of assurances around SVN's ability to manage a repo of our size. (1.3GB, 216,000+ files and counting) CVS may not be the new, shiny kid on the block, but it's been very stable, presented few problems and, in general, has served us well over the past 5+ years. Folks tend to point at the fancy bells and whistles that other VCS offer, but they don't always stop to consider the stability and scalability which are the most important characteristics by far. --kurt pgppzinaG6L8C.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-dev] The deal with epkgmove
For those who aren't devs; epkgmove is a tool to move and rename packages around in CVS. It lives here: [1] As it stands currently, epkgmove is likely to mess up the tree for anything but simple package moves/renames with only a couple of minor deps. The code is hideous, and needs a rewrite. However, I don't think we should even be using such a tool. Package moves are best done on the server where it can keep track of all dependency and package references as they're committed. For epkgmove to perform 100% accurate moves, it needs to do a full tree scan plus reverse dep checking, which would make it too slow to be useful. There are a handful of other non-trivial checks it has too perform. SVN in combination with the mentioned server side caching would probably be the best solution, though obviously CVS -> SVN transition for gentoo-x86 is no minor task. For the time being and near future, I think moves should be done by hand. What are your thoughts on this, infra? 1: http://dev.gentoo.org/~port001/DevTools/epkgmove/ Regards, Ian Leitch -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
