[RFC] Switching glibc-bsd from svn to git
Hi! I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn to git repositories, because svn is increasingly painful compared to git, when it comes to at least partial commits, tagging (we don't seem to be tagging much), branching and merging, offline hacking, etc... I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories, although I'd like to keep just the current packaging-only structure, to the point I'd rather keep using svn instead of a full-upstream+packaging git repository, which I find so annoying that I think I'd stop touching them. What do people think? Thanks, Guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130519164956.ga15...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: [RFC] Switching glibc-bsd from svn to git
Hi Guillem, (swapping some sentences) > What do people think? Yes! Please do! I made the same proposal a while back and I'm looking forward to see that happen. > I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories, although I'd like to > keep just the current packaging-only structure, to the point I'd rather > keep using svn instead of a full-upstream+packaging git repository, which > I find so annoying that I think I'd stop touching them. It may make sense to make several independent repositories instead of a single huge one of (semi-) unrelated packages. For those missing the familiarity of a single huge chunk of a repository we could use git submodules. However, I find working on the shallow glibc-bsd repository increasingly painful. Given the sheer amount of code I agree we probably do not want to include lots of upstream code in our repository (or repositories), but possibly we could find something in between. Perhaps we could have at least a working trunk including upstream code for each packaging repository + pristine-tar since we pack all tarballs ourselves anyway? No need to have (tracking) upstream branches, full code tags etc though. Another benefit of using git is, that those wanting all of that can have their own remotes or local branches providing it. -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [RFC] Switching glibc-bsd from svn to git
Hi! Guillem Jover writes: > I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn > to git repositories, because svn is increasingly painful compared to git, > when it comes to at least partial commits, tagging (we don't seem to > be tagging much), branching and merging, offline hacking, etc... > > I'd even volunteer to switch the repositories, although I'd like to > keep just the current packaging-only structure, to the point I'd rather > keep using svn instead of a full-upstream+packaging git repository, which > I find so annoying that I think I'd stop touching them. Works for me. How about the others? Petr, Steven, Arno, Aurelien, Robert? Christoph -- 9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731 Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sj1igat8@hepworth.siccegge.de
Re: [RFC] Switching glibc-bsd from svn to git
Hi Guillem! This sounds like a good idea. Git would seem easier to work with, for exactly the things you mentioned. I still think it is best to fetch upstream source using Subversion; but certainly we are free to choose something else for the packaging. Regards, -- Steven Chamberlain ste...@pyro.eu.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51991d4a.7010...@pyro.eu.org
Re: [RFC] Switching glibc-bsd from svn to git
I'd like to propose switching and splitting the glibc-bsd repo from svn to git repositories My position: - use svn or git It does not matter for me. - packaging-only or full content I strongly prefer packaging-only. - one common repository x repository per package I slightly prefer one common. The exception is glibc-bsd/glibc-ports, as this one is in fact master repository, and packaging is done inside pkg-glibc repository. It have completely different workflow compared to others. Petr -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/alpine.lnx.2.00.1305200843390.21...@contest.felk.cvut.cz
