Stuart Herbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Thanks for the summary. I think that's a fair assessment of where we are at. > > The offered software will be trac, svn, and moinmoin. I'm going to > look at darcs, and with the help of the haskell team and infra > determine if we can support it or not. No-one has expressed a > preference for a different distributed VCS instead of darcs. > > Just one more thing ...
It sounds to me like the overlays would benefit of using git/cogito. The Linux Kernel uses this DVCS to full affect. Pulling changes from other repositories, and even receiving email patches pushed from people not having their own official repository (or repository http or ssh accessible). Any git checkout is a branch, so its easy to stay up to date with the mainline tree and still work on personal branches. We need to pick one VCS and only one. Having multiple systems requires users to install multiple applications and learn each one. Not all of them are easy to pick up. Plus, it would be nice to be able to merge from the overlays to the Portage trunk. I think git/cogito might be the solution. It works for a highly distributed kernel development, which would be similar to the way the overlays would work. Gentoo User A would checkout the kde overlay, make some changes, cg-commit them to their own overlay, and submit the patches upstream via an email requesting a pull, or emailing them patches directly with a git-mkmail command. An alternative to git would be using subversion. *** The main portage tree should be switched away from CVS. *** There are much better alternatives (svn or git) to use. CVS is our bottleneck when it comes to development and our users too. What I see is that the overlays are trying to create branches, when they should not need to. Making a PHP or Gnome v2000 overlay is ridiculous, since a branch is almost free using subversion. There are more advantages, like making sure the rest of the tree doesn't break, and when the branch is stable for package.mask or arch masking then merge the branch to trunk. The main tree could live within subversion (or whatever VCS we choose) as a branch. It would be easy to keep the branch up to date with trunk, and then merge the changes to the live branch. Major changes to the tree need to be done in a branch where it should be done. Overlays should be used only for small additions/changes/or tests. It feels like the overlays are already trying to create branches, when in fact, they would not have to if the main tree was _not_ in CVS. There are advantages to subversion and advantages to git. I propose picking one (I vote for subversion) to use for the overlays. I also believe that CVS is now hindering us from reaching our goals as a project. Comments? -Ryan
pgphIgIdx4NkR.pgp
Description: PGP signature
