On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 17:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> At the same time, I think we still need to be able to very clearly
> separate out our changes from what upstream has. Just a git repo of the
> kernel very quickly gets out of control and you end up with bazillions
> of things that you never p
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:53 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:16 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > The problem with a staged approach like this two-fold
> > 1) Moving off of CVS is going to end up requiring a fair bit of
> > relearning/retraining for people. Even if we keep
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:53 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
>
>
> This might sound crazy (SUPPORT > 1 SYSTEM, ARE YOU CRAZY?) Well,
> yes,
> until you realize what you need to do here. To start with you only
> have
> to teach the rpm build side how pull a specific tag from a specific
> repo.
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 16:16 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
> The problem with a staged approach like this two-fold
> 1) Moving off of CVS is going to end up requiring a fair bit of
> relearning/retraining for people. Even if we keep the workflow the
> same. So by having it as a two-step thing, peop
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 16:25:18 Mike McGrath wrote:
> Thats not to say that some good work couldn't get done now though,
> jcollie isn't that involved in polishing our current tools but he's got
> a git background. I say let him test and let us know what he comes up
> with.
Absolutely. In ord
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 15:32:49 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
1. We convert the package repository to a new SCM so that we can get
off of CVS, but the process/workflow remains relatively unchanged. This
I think that we could definitely have in place by F8.
Please, f
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 15:32:49 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> 1. We convert the package repository to a new SCM so that we can get
> off of CVS, but the process/workflow remains relatively unchanged. This
> I think that we could definitely have in place by F8.
Please, for the love of god, let us
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 14:32 -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> When I first read these two posts, I thought "you guys are crazy",
No argument here ;-)
> but
> then I thought about it a bit more and started thinking "Whoah! This
> could be really cool!" I think what is described here could certain
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 13:50 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> >
> > Right. I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
> > switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows. The change
> > should be more about h
On Wednesday 06 June 2007 14:29:41 Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Moreover,there have been requests from developers to explicitly *NOT*
> significantly change the development methodology for F8 after the changes
> of F7.
I firmly believe that this is not something we can do by F8 release. This is
some
Jeremy Katz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) said:
> Right. I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
> switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows. The change
> should be more about how do we improve workflows. That means thinking
> about things like:
> * How do we make it
Christopher Blizzard wrote:
Awesome stuff. This is the right way to go about the conversation, for
sure. I would love to add some stuff to this list:
Anyone know how our other friends are doing their package management? I
know OpenSuSE doesn't really have a cvs at all, its complet
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
>
> Right. I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
> switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows. The change
> should be more about how do we improve workflows. That means thinking
> about things like:
> *
O/H Paulo Santos έγραψε:
> Personally i would go for 1.7, since im sure that noone will want to
> maintain their own moin branch, and keep patching it manually without
> breaking the rest of the "new" patches.
Working with upstream 1.7 sounds more sane.
-d
--
Dimitris Glezos
Jabber ID: [EMAI
Karsten,
Personally i would go for 1.7, since im sure that noone will want to
maintain their own moin branch, and keep patching it manually without
breaking the rest of the "new" patches.
Paulo
On 6/6/07, Karsten Wade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Last summer we were tracking GSoC changes agai
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 11:09 -0500, Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:44 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:17 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > > I'm glad this is started back up. One thing that amuses
Last summer we were tracking GSoC changes against the 1.5 trunk of Moin.
Those change never got merged, so did not make the 1.6 release. FWIW,
we're still looking for someone interested in Python, DocBook, and Moin
to help maintain those patches; if we did, we might get them accepted
into the trun
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:44 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:17 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > > I'm glad this is started back up. One thing that amuses me is back
> > > before the F7 launch it almost seemed assured tha
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:31 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:17 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> > I'm glad this is started back up. One thing that amuses me is back
> > before the F7 launch it almost seemed assured that we would all go with
> > mercurial. This line isn't so cle
Jeremy Katz wrote:
Right. I really don't think we want to just take our current system,
switch out CVS, and end up with all of the same workflows. The change
should be more about how do we improve workflows. That means thinking
about things like:
* How do we make it easier for a maintainer to
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 09:17 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
> I'm glad this is started back up. One thing that amuses me is back
> before the F7 launch it almost seemed assured that we would all go with
> mercurial. This line isn't so clear now, a lot of people have been
> using git. It seems our
Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
With F8T1 fast approaching (it's currently scheduled to be released on 1
August 2007) we need to get cracking on a new VCS system. I've been
working on converting the CVS repositories to GIT on some spare hardware
that I've had laying around. I think that it's at a stage
With F8T1 fast approaching (it's currently scheduled to be released on 1
August 2007) we need to get cracking on a new VCS system. I've been
working on converting the CVS repositories to GIT on some spare hardware
that I've had laying around. I think that it's at a stage where input &
testing fro
Mike McGrath wrote:
> Nils Breunese wrote:
>> Mike McGrath wrote:
>>> Hopefully we'll be using both tape and disk backups. Once our new disk
>>> tray gets in we'll have to prepare to backup a couple TB of Binary
>>> RPMs. Some of our backups will be going to disk, some will be going to
>>> tape.
24 matches
Mail list logo
