On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote: > On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote: >> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier. >> >> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to >> avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However, >> maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue: >> >> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to >> poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:
I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this, fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our users. >> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://g...@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git >> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo >> git checkout foo My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects. I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in the same repository. >> >> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to >> download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote >> update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid >> having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just >> one of those "git being a pain to learn" > > Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to > setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under > <keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get > their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly > possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know > the commands. > > This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how > often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases > but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm > sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too. > As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic, > it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user > specific anyway. I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two layers. And they will end up naming them something like: yocto-contrib-layer-1.git yocto-contrib-layer-2.git And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories. Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try and make this work. Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above? -- Darren Hart Intel Open Source Technology Center Yocto Project - Linux Kernel _______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
