Two things from this mass branching that showed up:
1) Something weird happened, and all the modules entries pw*-z got deleted from the modules file halfway through. We get to try and put them back. Um, yay?
2) The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out, and nearly *1.2GB* under RCS. That can't be good.
The reason for this is to allow for the creation of pseudo-modules for each 'branch', i.e., so 'cvs co FC-5' generates a:
FC-5/bash FC-5/automake FC-5/autoconf ...
tree, where the FC-5/<package> directory is the 'normal' <package>/FC-5 dir.
(Note that the 'devel' meta-branch is done in an Entirely Different manner.)
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
Bill
"BN" == Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com writes:
BN> So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep BN> supporting this?
I can't see how it's all that useful. And given that this is the kind of weirdness that's going to be difficult to emulate using some other version control system, getting rid of it now could make it easier to switch to something else in the future.
- J<
On 21 Apr 2008 21:35:01 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"BN" == Bill Nottingham notting@redhat.com writes:
BN> So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep BN> supporting this?
I can't see how it's all that useful. And given that this is the kind of weirdness that's going to be difficult to emulate using some other version control system, getting rid of it now could make it easier to switch to something else in the future.
Agreed. Take it out back and...
Cheers, Christian
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Two things from this mass branching that showed up:
- Something weird happened, and all the modules entries pw*-z
got deleted from the modules file halfway through. We get to try and put them back. Um, yay?
- The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out,
and nearly *1.2GB* under RCS. That can't be good.
The reason for this is to allow for the creation of pseudo-modules for each 'branch', i.e., so 'cvs co FC-5' generates a:
FC-5/bash FC-5/automake FC-5/autoconf ...
tree, where the FC-5/<package> directory is the 'normal' <package>/FC-5 dir.
(Note that the 'devel' meta-branch is done in an Entirely Different manner.)
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
I'd say no but I've never used this feature at all.
-Toshio
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
Is the fact that you can check out e.g. "FC-5" even *documented* anywhere? I don't recall having come across it, but then again I am a skimmer.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 01:48:48 -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
Is the fact that you can check out e.g. "FC-5" even *documented* anywhere? I don't recall having come across it, but then again I am a skimmer.
The generic "cvs co BRANCH" was documented and used during the FE era. It's a matter of convenience. It was quick access to a specific branch without the need to filter package branch dirs [with a little bit extra work in scripts]. But all I remember is that the modules file was broken often and needed fixes before a full branch could be checked out. Nowadays, cvs contents are so huge, one better avoids checking out complete branches. One is better of to download the seed file and up from there.
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 22:19 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
- Something weird happened, and all the modules entries pw*-z
got deleted from the modules file halfway through. We get to try and put them back. Um, yay?
The branching is done now, any smooth thoughts on how to recover this before I turn CVS commits back on?
- The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out,
and nearly *1.2GB* under RCS. That can't be good.
The reason for this is to allow for the creation of pseudo-modules for each 'branch', i.e., so 'cvs co FC-5' generates a:
FC-5/bash FC-5/automake FC-5/autoconf ...
tree, where the FC-5/<package> directory is the 'normal' <package>/FC-5 dir.
(Note that the 'devel' meta-branch is done in an Entirely Different manner.)
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
No, get rid of it.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Two things from this mass branching that showed up:
- Something weird happened, and all the modules entries pw*-z
got deleted from the modules file halfway through. We get to try and put them back. Um, yay?
- The modules file, *as it stands now*, is nearly 3MB checked out,
and nearly *1.2GB* under RCS. That can't be good.
The reason for this is to allow for the creation of pseudo-modules for each 'branch', i.e., so 'cvs co FC-5' generates a:
FC-5/bash FC-5/automake FC-5/autoconf ...
tree, where the FC-5/<package> directory is the 'normal' <package>/FC-5 dir.
(Note that the 'devel' meta-branch is done in an Entirely Different manner.)
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
I find it handy to check out the entirity of devel/, but the older releases I couldn't care less about. I can't imagine why someone would want the entire package CVS of an older release unless they were looking for something tree-wide, which few peope are loony enough to want to do.
Dave
Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 10:19:40PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
So, the question would be... is this worth it? Do we want to keep supporting this?
I find it handy to check out the entirity of devel/, but the older releases I couldn't care less about.
I'm with Dave here. I keep devel/ checked out so I can grep for BuildRequires and the like. I would really like to just be able to checkout all the spec files - don't care about the patches, etc.
Orion Poplawski (orion@cora.nwra.com) said:
I find it handy to check out the entirity of devel/, but the older releases I couldn't care less about.
I'm with Dave here. I keep devel/ checked out so I can grep for BuildRequires and the like. I would really like to just be able to checkout all the spec files - don't care about the patches, etc.
As stated in the original mail, 'devel' still works, as it's done in a different manner.
Bill
buildsys@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Bill Nottingham -
Christian Iseli -
Dave Jones -
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Jesse Keating -
Michael Schwendt -
Orion Poplawski -
Toshio Kuratomi