On Wednesday 06 June 2007 16:37:33 Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote: > This post was mainly meant to get the discussion started. Can we keep all the discussion on fedora-devel-list now though? I hate cross posting and I hate posting the same thing twice (: > After having > read some of the discussions on the Infrastructure list I think that you > are right - major changes to the packager workflow should be held off > until post F8. However, some of the discussions on the Infratrusture > list talked about some radical shifts (that I'm in favor of) from the > RPM philosophy of "pristine tarballs plus patches" that I think moving > wholesale to a different workflow by F9 may be difficult. > > However, I think that a two-pronged approach is possible: > > 1) Convert the CVS repository to a new SCM in such a way that the > packager workflow is impacted as little as possible. Much of the detail > of using CVS to maintain packages is hidden from the package maintainer > anyway (all you really need to know right now is "cvs co", "cvs up", and > "cvs ci"). Some changes to Koji would be necessary behind the scenes > but they would be transparent to the packager, and would be necessary > for a new workflow as well. > > This conversion would largely be automatic... Several people have > converted portions of the CVS repository into other SCMs (I know Git, > Mercurial, and Subversion conversions have been done) and I've converted > the whole repository (yes, all 4500+ packages) to Git. > > Perhaps this step could be skipped, but the more I learn about CVS the > more I want to move away from it yesterday. > > 2) In parallel, another repository would be set up to handle "new style" > packaging (whatever "new style" ends up meaning). Post F8, when a > package is ready in the new-style repository an entry would be made in > the package database and Koji would stop accepting build requests from > the old-style repository for that package and would begin using the > new-style repository. F9 would be built from both old-style and > new-style packages. By F10 all packages would be converted to the > new-style packages. So for the record let me dump Jeremy's reply to this here for others to see, since I fully agree with it: > The problem with a staged approach like this two-fold > 1) Moving off of CVS is going to end up requiring a fair bit of > relearning/retraining for people. Even if we keep the workflow the > same. So by having it as a two-step thing, people have to retrain > themselves _twice_ rather than just once. > 2) If you let some people move and not others, then it becomes very > difficult to know what you have to do to make changes to a specific > package. If you're the only person that works on something, that's not > such a big deal... but we want to be encouraging collaboration and > working together. Having two different ways of doing that at the same > time is going to mean that everyone has to get over the hump _anyway_. > So why not just take our lumps in get there in a go. > > Jeremy -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpbNiDfTC1hv.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
