On 04.09.2012 11:22, Henrik Nordström wrote:
tis 2012-09-04 klockan 10:56 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
FWIW: I'm in favour of the upgrade, it is a large part of the build
timeout issues on rio Debian sid build slave, it causes timeouts
while
converting the repo changes and/or downloading large portions of
repo
changeset data before for each test. It is also the reason I'm only
working with patches as merge candidates these days.
Yes there is nothing holding back the upgrade to 2a repository format
today.
There is a 2a repository already prepared in /bzr/squid3-2a since
some
years back. It's not automatically pulling changes from /bzr/squid3
at
the moment but is kept mostly up to date.
There is also an alternative layout tree at /bzr/squid3-new-2a/ which
flattens the tree to
../
trunk
3.0
3.1
3.2
getting rid of the CVS references and other legacy.
Does this obsolete the CVS mirror completely? or do you mean that is
all pushed into the mirror sub-directories system instead of the bzr
repo?
What do you mean by "other legacy"?
Switching to squid3-2a is only a matter of switching the two folders.
Switching to the alternative layout requires a bit more discussion as
it
has effects on branch URLS and our scripts. It is possible to add
symlinks to allow both URL styles.
I think that flattening is a good idea.
Any local branches in old format needs upgrading as well. Due to the
number of revisions i'd recommend setting up a 2a shared-repository
from
the already converted tree and branch your local old format trees
into
that for conversation.
Okay. As long as we have a scheduled time and process how-to
distributed I don't see any problems there.
Do we have administrative time to see this through before the 15th
Sept? I will be wanting to branch 3.3 by the end of this month and it
would make sense to deal with less branches in the migration.
Amos
