overlay support current proposal?

On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:47 -0800, Ryan Phillips wrote:

> 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'm not sure it is realistic at the moment to pick just one
DVCS. Apart
from getting one that works on all systems, it's likely to
be hard to
get everyone to agree.

There's a slight danger that the discussion of which VCS
could distract
us from the important questions.

If we're going with the idea that at least at first these
overlay are
going to be run by and for projects/teams/herds then perhaps
the choice
of VCS is not so important. So long as it's feasible with
infra of
course. Since we don't yet expect people to be using
several of these
overlays at once it's probably that each developer or
outside
contributer would not need to use more than one VCS (in
addition to cvs
for portage).

As a plus side, this might give us some feedback on which
(D)VCSs work
well for overlay development and might help inform our
future decisions
on possible cvs replacements.

BTW I hope that with all my recent emails on the issue of
which
arches/platforms can run darcs I've not been giving the
impression that
I'm pushing for darcs to be the "one true"
choice. I am certainly
interested in working with any arch team to get ghc and
darcs ported but
that's a separate issue.

-- 
Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell herd team lead)
email         : dcoutts at gentoo dot org

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Duncan Coutts wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:47 -0800, Ryan Phillips wrote:
> 
>> 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'm not sure it is realistic at the moment to pick
just one DVCS. Apart
> from getting one that works on all systems, it's
likely to be hard to
> get everyone to agree.
> 
> There's a slight danger that the discussion of which
VCS could distract
> us from the important questions.
> 
> If we're going with the idea that at least at first
these overlay are
> going to be run by and for projects/teams/herds then
perhaps the choice
> of VCS is not so important. So long as it's feasible
with infra of
> course. Since we don't yet expect people to be using
several of these
> overlays at once it's probably that each developer or
outside
> contributer would not need to use more than one VCS (in
addition to cvs
> for portage).
> 
> As a plus side, this might give us some feedback on
which (D)VCSs work
> well for overlay development and might help inform our
future decisions
> on possible cvs replacements.
> 
> BTW I hope that with all my recent emails on the issue
of which
> arches/platforms can run darcs I've not been giving
the impression that
> I'm pushing for darcs to be the "one true"
choice. I am certainly
> interested in working with any arch team to get ghc and
darcs ported but
> that's a separate issue.
> 

given that darcs can export and import git with ease and
mercurial can 
do the same up to a degree, we could use those three.

(since they are all documented people could implement them
in other 
language if they wish)

darcs : ghc
mercurial : python
git : c+bash (and optional perl/python for some merge
scripts)

lu

-- 

Luca Barbato

Gentoo/linux Gentoo/PPC
http://dev.gentoo.org/
~lu_zero

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 06:39:15AM +0200, Luca Barbato
wrote:
> git : c+bash (and optional perl/python for some merge
scripts)

Just for clarifying things:

A strict server doesn't need perl or python (not even bash)
though bash
is highly recommended.

A client NEEDS python because the 'recursive' (default and
best) merge
strategy is written in python.

Cheers,
Ferdy

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git)
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 26, 2006 at 06:39:15AM +0200, Luca Barbato
wrote:
>> git : c+bash (and optional perl/python for some
merge scripts)

I think git is probably the best choice, I have played with
it a little
myself and it is _very_ powerful, it also has a very simple
dependency
set (all it's deps are in the Gentoo core system, and are
either
available or installed by default on every *NIX I know of).

I agree with Flameeyes that it would be best if we use a
DVCS that
doesn't have too many deps that might or might not work on
other
platforms/systems.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


iD8DBQFEKWRPWt/XSf2CZdkRArDgAJ4mQx/cnxQSBpKpL2o+N9/jnTqR1QCe
MG4L
yJzx6zyCEUJpv2Db4h6iX5s=
=UgNs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Is there a concensus out of this thread, on the topic of a
distributed
VCS?  
Preferrably from devs who will actually want overlays? 

Best regards,
Stu

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On 3/28/06, Patrick McLean <chutzpahgentoo.org> wrote:
> I think git is probably the best choice, I have played
with it a little
> myself and it is _very_ powerful, it also has a very
simple dependency
> set (all it's deps are in the Gentoo core system, and
are either
> available or installed by default on every *NIX I know
of).
I prefer git too. However has anyone tried git with the
current tree?
Some practical numbers would be appreciated.
--
Bi C� Lao

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Stuart Herbert wrote: [Thu Mar 30 2006, 07:40:47AM EST]
> Is there a concensus out of this thread, on the topic
of
> a distributed VCS?  
Preferrably from devs who will actually want
> overlays? 

I don't think there's a consensus really, but here's what
I'd suggest
based on what people have said:

In a nutshell, all three of darcs, git and mercurial are
powerful and
suited to the task.  Darcs is clearly controversial.  It has
momentum
because it's already used by the haskell team's overlay. 
But its
reliance on ghc, which doesn't work on mips and is a
non-system
dependency, means that it's not favored for more general
overlays.

I think we might be best to try three revision control
systems to
start: darcs, git and subversion.  Three seems like a lot,
but each
has its reason, and we can anticipate darcs being used
primarily by
the haskell team rather than for overlays in general.

Regarding the question of mercurial vs. git, I previously
recommended
mercurial over git.  At this point other devs have made the
case for
git, so I'm happy to give it a try.

How does this go over? 

Aron
-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

Hi Aron,

On 3/30/06, Aron Griffis <agriffisgentoo.org> wrote:
> I think we might be best to try three revision control
systems to
> start: darcs, git and subversion.  Three seems like a
lot, but each
> has its reason, and we can anticipate darcs being used
primarily by
> the haskell team rather than for overlays in general.

Many thanks for the summary.  I'll find some time to look
at how we
can support darcs and git, and I'll post some news when I
have some 

Best regards,
Stu

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list

On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 09:16:17AM +0100, Stuart Herbert
wrote:
> Hi Aron,
> 
> On 3/30/06, Aron Griffis <agriffisgentoo.org> wrote:
> > I think we might be best to try three revision
control systems to
> > start: darcs, git and subversion.  Three seems
like a lot, but each
> > has its reason, and we can anticipate darcs being
used primarily by
> > the haskell team rather than for overlays in
general.
> 
> Many thanks for the summary.  I'll find some time to
look at how we
> can support darcs and git, and I'll post some news
when I have some 

Feel free to contact me if you need help with Git.

- ferdy

-- 
Fernando J. Pereda Garcimartín
Gentoo Developer (Alpha,net-mail,mutt,git)
20BB BDC3 761A 4781 E6ED  ED0B 0A48 5B0C 60BD 28D4

On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 10:24 +0200, Fernando J. Pereda wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 09:16:17AM +0100, Stuart
Herbert wrote:
> > Hi Aron,
> > 
> > On 3/30/06, Aron Griffis <agriffisgentoo.org> wrote:
> > > I think we might be best to try three
revision control systems to
> > > start: darcs, git and subversion.  Three
seems like a lot, but each
> > > has its reason, and we can anticipate darcs
being used primarily by
> > > the haskell team rather than for overlays in
general.
> > 
> > Many thanks for the summary.  I'll find some time
to look at how we
> > can support darcs and git, and I'll post some
news when I have some 
> 
> Feel free to contact me if you need help with Git.

And likewise, free to contact me if you need help with
Darcs.


Current keyword status of darcs, git and mercurial:

all are ok on alpha, amd64, ppc and x86.
darcs and mercurial are ok on ia64
darcs and git are ok on ppc64 and sparc
git is ok on hppa and mips

hppa should be easy, ghc already works there. We're working
on getting
ghc working on mips (it works fine on Irix) but no promises.

-- 
Duncan Coutts : Gentoo Developer (Haskell herd team lead)
email         : dcoutts at gentoo dot org

-- 
gentoo-devgentoo.org mailing list