Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
Henrik Nordstrom wrote: fre 2010-03-26 klockan 12:18 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries: FWIW, I've already upgraded my local repos months ago. There have been no ill side effects from 2a here despite the source repo being 0.9. If you can it's worth doing the upgrade locally anyway even before the master. How do you merge stuff back to the main repo from your upgraded one? Or maybe merge works and just push/commit(bound) don't..? I use merge/commit. Have not used push/pull since the change. There was a repo by Robert that I have been unable to pull recently, so I suspect with your mention of push/pull not working that may have been the cause there. Will try that again when I have time for more Squid Amos -- Please be using Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE8 or 3.0.STABLE25 Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.18
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
fre 2010-03-26 klockan 12:18 +1300 skrev Amos Jeffries: > FWIW, I've already upgraded my local repos months ago. There have been > no ill side effects from 2a here despite the source repo being 0.9. If > you can it's worth doing the upgrade locally anyway even before the master. How do you merge stuff back to the main repo from your upgraded one? Or maybe merge works and just push/commit(bound) don't..? Regards Henrik
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
tor 2010-03-25 klockan 15:29 -0600 skrev Alex Rousskov: > Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is > apparently incapable of moving with the same speed! Fedora keeps up.. but you then need to keep up with Fedora as well with new full OS releases every 6 months.. > If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the > everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions > work for me :-). 1. Upgrade bzr to a supported release. 2. Anywhere in the repository, run "bzr upgrade" and go out for lunch. Hopefully done when you come back, otherwise go directly to coffiebreak until done.. Actually the 2 above is a little pessimistic. You can continue working in an old repository just fine until the upgrade is done provided you do the upgrade in a new path/location. Pushing from an old repository to 2a works fine, only gets a little tricky if there is merges needing to be done due to changes in both.. (you then need to push to a new branch in 2a and merge from there) Regards Henrik
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
tor 2010-03-25 klockan 18:01 +0100 skrev Kinkie: > He didn't threaten any, but I didn't specifically ask for promises :) > The worst I can think of is that it will mandate all developers to > have halfway recent bzr installs. 2a will basically require bzr 1.18 or later to be useful iirc. Upgrading to 2a is also a one-way path. Once you switch over to a rich-root format there is no way back to the older format. There is also no way to push/pull things from a 2a repository to older non-rich versions, which means that when we switch over all developers must also upgrade their repositories. I still have some machines where bzr is not up to date for handling 2a repositories. > We need to backup it before, rolling back is then very easy. Depends on when you need to roll back. See above. but there is no risk of loosing the repository due to the upgrade itself. There is an automatic backup done by the upgrade process. > the 'bzr upgrade' process also does that automatically. During the > upgrade the repository will be unavailable. True, and takes an hour or so, at least last time I tried upgrading a moderate squid repository to 2a. The main repository probably takes a bit longer due to the wast amount of branches in there left over from the CVS conversation. Regards Henrik
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
Alex Rousskov wrote: On 03/25/2010 02:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 10:40 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote: I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the repo format to format 2a . Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? Has Robert promised no bad side-effects? Everyone will *need* bzr 2.0.x, or newer. (2.1.0 recommended, naturally). bzr has moved to a micro-release every month, so 2.0.0 is now 7 months old. Sigh. I would rather not upgrade then. I do not know how to move from bzr 1.3 to bzr 2.0.x on Red Hat box that I have to use for some of the development, and I doubt somebody here would enjoy educating me on that process... Besides, even Ubuntu 9.10 only has bzr v2.0.2 by default. Thus, we would be cutting it pretty close to bleeding edge for many. There is an ubuntu ppa for more recent versions of bazaar here: https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa but it looks like they may be testing versions. The description says the repo contains the " latest release or release candidate of bzr...". It looks like it has bazaar 2.1.0 for karmic, jaunty, intrepid, and hardy. They don't list a build for lucid. Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is apparently incapable of moving with the same speed! 2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a bit of time (or delete them and pull anew). If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions work for me :-). Cheers, Alex.
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
Kinkie wrote: On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: On 03/25/2010 03:33 PM, Kinkie wrote: If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions work for me :-). "bzr upgrade" will suffice. I think you are missing step1: Install bzr 2.0 or better. That step will probably not work for me on some of the development boxes. Yes, you were clear on that. And I do not discount the hassle of upgrading bzr, that's exacly what I see as the biggest hurdle. At the same time, speeding up vcs-related daily operations might be a good thing(tm). So my proposal is, let's wait until some of the release (and development) heat has faded, and aim for a mid-May format upgrade. What do you think? Agreed. At *least* May for the main repository. Also, don't forget Guido and the Windows version of bzr. He will also need to also have an explicit veto/approve before we can change this. FWIW, I've already upgraded my local repos months ago. There have been no ill side effects from 2a here despite the source repo being 0.9. If you can it's worth doing the upgrade locally anyway even before the master. Amos -- Please be using Current Stable Squid 2.7.STABLE8 or 3.0.STABLE25 Current Beta Squid 3.1.0.18
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 15:29 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > Sigh. I would rather not upgrade then. I do not know how to move from > bzr 1.3 to bzr 2.0.x on Red Hat box that I have to use for some of the > development, and I doubt somebody here would enjoy educating me on that > process... Besides, even Ubuntu 9.10 only has bzr v2.0.2 by default. > Thus, we would be cutting it pretty close to bleeding edge for many. Yes, 2.0.0 was relatively recent. > Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is > apparently incapable of moving with the same speed! Well, we try to balance things; and we expect to stay with 2a for quite some time as a default - probably several years, as we did with 1.0. > > 2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But > > everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a > > bit of time (or delete them and pull anew). > > If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the > everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions > work for me :-). http://doc.bazaar.canonical.com/bzr.2.1/en/upgrade-guide/index.html -Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 10:42 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 03/25/2010 03:33 PM, Kinkie wrote: >>> If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the >>> everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions >>> work for me :-). >> >> "bzr upgrade" will suffice. > > I think you are missing step1: Install bzr 2.0 or better. That step will > probably not work for me on some of the development boxes. Yes, you were clear on that. And I do not discount the hassle of upgrading bzr, that's exacly what I see as the biggest hurdle. At the same time, speeding up vcs-related daily operations might be a good thing(tm). So my proposal is, let's wait until some of the release (and development) heat has faded, and aim for a mid-May format upgrade. What do you think? -- /kinkie
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On 03/25/2010 03:33 PM, Kinkie wrote: >> If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the >> everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions >> work for me :-). > > "bzr upgrade" will suffice. I think you are missing step1: Install bzr 2.0 or better. That step will probably not work for me on some of the development boxes. Alex.
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
> If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the > everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions > work for me :-). "bzr upgrade" will suffice. Will create a "backup.bzr" directory containing the former ".bzr" directory to enable rollback. As shown in my experience on west.squid-cache.org, it may be a memory-intensive process. -- /kinkie
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On 03/25/2010 02:50 PM, Robert Collins wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 10:40 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: >> On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote: >>> I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an >>> ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. >>> After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the >>> repo format to format 2a . >>> Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? >> Has Robert promised no bad side-effects? > > Everyone will *need* bzr 2.0.x, or newer. (2.1.0 recommended, > naturally). bzr has moved to a micro-release every month, so 2.0.0 is > now 7 months old. Sigh. I would rather not upgrade then. I do not know how to move from bzr 1.3 to bzr 2.0.x on Red Hat box that I have to use for some of the development, and I doubt somebody here would enjoy educating me on that process... Besides, even Ubuntu 9.10 only has bzr v2.0.2 by default. Thus, we would be cutting it pretty close to bleeding edge for many. Bzr folks are very good at making lots of releases but the world is apparently incapable of moving with the same speed! > 2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But > everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a > bit of time (or delete them and pull anew). If nothing else, this will require instruction on how to upgrade the everyone repositories. I can support the upgrade once those instructions work for me :-). Cheers, Alex.
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On Thu, 2010-03-25 at 10:40 -0600, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote: > > I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an > > ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. > > After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the > > repo format to format 2a . > > Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? > > Has Robert promised no bad side-effects? Everyone will *need* bzr 2.0.x, or newer. (2.1.0 recommended, naturally). bzr has moved to a micro-release every month, so 2.0.0 is now 7 months old. 2a is much more compact on disk, and faster across the board. But everyone will need to upgrade their own repositories, which can take a bit of time (or delete them and pull anew). Cheers, Rob signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On Thu, Mar 25, 2010 at 5:40 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote: >> I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an >> ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. >> After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the >> repo format to format 2a . >> Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? > > Has Robert promised no bad side-effects? He didn't threaten any, but I didn't specifically ask for promises :) The worst I can think of is that it will mandate all developers to have halfway recent bzr installs. >> A word of warning for the person who's going to be doing it: the >> conversion process takes more than the half gig of RAM which is the >> per-process limit limit on west.squid-cache.org, so it will fail if >> done on west by unprivileged users. > > Will the repository be corrupted if the upgrade process fails? We need to backup it before, rolling back is then very easy. the 'bzr upgrade' process also does that automatically. During the upgrade the repository will be unavailable. -- /kinkie
Re: Upgrade repository format for trunk?
On 03/25/2010 10:06 AM, Kinkie wrote: > I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an > ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. > After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the > repo format to format 2a . > Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? Has Robert promised no bad side-effects? > A word of warning for the person who's going to be doing it: the > conversion process takes more than the half gig of RAM which is the > per-process limit limit on west.squid-cache.org, so it will fail if > done on west by unprivileged users. Will the repository be corrupted if the upgrade process fails? Thank you, Alex.
Upgrade repository format for trunk?
Hi all, I've noticed that the bzr repository for trunk is based on an ancient "pack-0.92" repo format. After a few emails with Robert his recommendation is to upgrade the repo format to format 2a . Does anyone see any reason why this should not be done? A word of warning for the person who's going to be doing it: the conversion process takes more than the half gig of RAM which is the per-process limit limit on west.squid-cache.org, so it will fail if done on west by unprivileged users. Thanks -- /kinkie
