Discussion on tags/, backpors, G2.16 branch (Was: pkg-gnome SVN layout)
Hi,
Here's the log from #gnome-debian between sjoerd and me, discussing the
need for a tags/ dir and the layout+locatin of such tags. (CIA commit
messages trimmed.)
10:31 < sjoerd> Oh, with the imminent release of G2.18, are there still people interested in provided a G2.16 backport for etch ? (and if so shouldn't we branch of the current packaging now mostly?)
10:31 <@lool> Great
10:32 <@lool> sjoerd: I don't think it's reasonable to start backporting 2.16 at this point
10:32 <@lool> Interestingly, in a distant past, there were branches per GNOME branch in our pkg-gnome SVN
10:33 < sjoerd> lool: I'm just saying if people might want to do it after etch, _then_ we should probably branch/tag most stuff now before starting real 2.18 packaging :)
10:34 < sjoerd> otoh by the time etc is released people would probably be more interested in a 2.18 backport anyways..
10:35 <@lool> sjoerd: You think someone would prefer backporting 2.16 over 2.18?
10:35 <@lool> Beside, actual backports will only start in some weeks, if not months
10:36 < sjoerd> Depends on how long it takes before we've got 2.18 in exp :)
10:36 < seb128> and Depends the requirements difference
10:36 < sjoerd> nod
10:37 <@lool> Well, our SVN really isn't meant to keep GNOME branches right now
10:37 < sjoerd> Basically we should think about tagging 2.16 stuff before proceding with 2.18 stuff.. It's no real extra work (just running an svn command) and might be valuable for some people imho
10:37 <@lool> If you ask me, GNOME branches make perfect sense
10:38 -!- Dodji is now known as Dodj|busy
10:39 < sjoerd> Well, in the past they weren't really necessary but as we're about to have three gnome releases packaged at the same time...
10:40 <@lool> Ok, but I will need help restructuring the SVN to match GNOME branches again, and also support
10:41 <@lool> Would people reading this be so kind to followup to my message on dgg@ldo to mention a 2.16 branch, and perhaps comment on the various layouts?
10:42 <@lool> I'd like to have some voices acking the change in layout or discussing other solutions / layouts
10:42 < sjoerd> the exp/<stable release's>/unstable/trunk thing looks fine to me.. Just need to get used to working with it i guess
10:43 < sjoerd> Especially with how to cherry-pick single patches from trunk to whatever..
10:43 * sjoerd sends a mail
10:43 <@lool> sjoerd: where do you put G2.16 packages in the above?
10:44 < sjoerd> probably just in a tags/ subdir
10:45 <@lool> sjoerd: Hmm that's nice; and then a new etch-backports or whatever when needed
10:45 <@lool> sjoerd: Ok, so no branch, but tags for G2.16 for now, that's fine by me
10:45 < sjoerd> Well, tags/branches are the same thing in svn afaik :)
10:46 < sjoerd> the other option would be just in the top-level, so exp, sarge, trunk, G2.16, exp etc
10:46 <@lool> sjoerd: At the SVN level yes, but I do see how I'm going to tag each individual package, and how a branch could be created for backports afterwards
10:48 < sjoerd> Right, well, that's mostly semantic sugar though :)
10:48 <@lool> merkel% dak ls sound-juicer
10:48 <@lool> merkel%
10:48 <@lool> Grr
10:48 < sjoerd> But if it makes it easier for people to think about it, then i'm all for it :)
10:50 <@lool> sjoerd: To be clearer, what you propose is to make a "svn cp" of the current 2.16 stuff in a placeholder, and resurrect it when a backport is being prepared; the problem I had was that I didn't want to see gnome-2.x branches mixed with unstable/exp/trunk, but now I see that we wont have a gnome-2.x branch but an etch-backport branch later on
10:51 <@lool> sjoerd: So, the fact that you mentionned a tag made me realize that we do not need to open a branch "2.16" right now, we will have a "backports" branch which makes more sense with the other branch names and it will only open when needed, with whatever version
10:51 <@lool> sjoerd: Or to put it even more clearly: your words enlight me! :)
10:51 * lool has been touched by the sjoerd
10:51 < sjoerd> right, fair enough.. tagging it as a tag will indeed make it clearer for people what the intension is :)
10:59 < sjoerd> Hrm, we should really make a nice document about this stuff btw -> really need to make the pkg-gnome website nicer
11:00 * sjoerd still in favour of copying the pkg-telepathy/pkg-ruby-extras webgen stuff :)
11:11 -!- sonne [~sonne@delta365.server4you.de] has joined #gnome-debian
11:26 -!- dholbach_ [~daniel@i59F77881.versanet.de] has joined #gnome-debian
11:26 -!- dholbach_ [~daniel@i59F77881.versanet.de] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:35 -!- dholbach [~daniel@i59F77881.versanet.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 600 seconds]
11:36 <@lool> seb128: You need to bump vte shlibs higher
11:37 < seb128> lool: k, thank you
11:46 -!- Beowulf [~jose@69.Red-83-61-133.dynamicIP.rima-tde.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 600 seconds]
11:47 <@lool> sjoerd: Hmm, you think we should hash the tags/ dir with a G2.16 subdir?
11:47 <@lool> sjoerd: Shouldn't we simply tag all uploads and let people preparing a backport cherry pick what they like
11:48 <@lool> sjoerd: Do you think the tags/ should be top-level or per package-type dir? (especially given that some packages get promoted to official status or get deprecated)
11:48 <@lool> (thanks for commenting!)
11:48 < sjoerd> np :)
11:49 < sjoerd> I wouldn't be against tagging everything.. Although people tend to forget it, but that's true for hashing it 2.16 too ofcourse
11:50 < sjoerd> you mean tags/official tags/extras etc ?
11:50 < sjoerd> Dunno, that's a hard one
11:50 <@lool> sjoerd: Actually, I thought we could have a top-level tags/$source/$version
11:50 <@lool> It also makes it easier not to checkout it
11:50 < sjoerd> I'd guess that per package type makes sense, as at the time it was tagged it had a certain tatus
11:50 <@lool> s/not to checkout it/to not checkout it
11:50 < sjoerd> $source being ? the source package
11:51 <@lool> yes
11:51 < sjoerd> right, so the choice is between that and tags/$package_type/$source/$version right ?
11:52 <@lool> a) pkg-gnome/tags/$source/$version b) pkg-gnome/$type/tags/$source c) pkg-gnome/tags/$package_type/$source/$version
11:53 <@lool> (All versions proposed so far)
11:53 <@lool> I prefer a), and I prefer anything top-level; it's less complex
11:54 < sjoerd> i'd say either a or b, don't have strong opinion any way
11:55 <@lool> Ok, I really prefer a), I think it will be simpler
11:55 < sjoerd> k
11:55 <@lool> sjoerd: May I send the above log to dgg?
11:55 < sjoerd> sure
--
Loïc Minier <lool@dooz.org>
Reply to: