Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository - Debian

This is a discussion on Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository - Debian ; -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Frans Pop writes: > On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Joey Hess wrote: >> FWIW, I think this move of win32-loader is pretty silly, both from the >> perspective of why we originally decided to ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

  1. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

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

    Frans Pop writes:

    > On Tuesday 25 March 2008, Joey Hess wrote:
    >> FWIW, I think this move of win32-loader is pretty silly, both from the
    >> perspective of why we originally decided to have a packages/
    >> subdirectory, and in that it seems to assume win32-loader is a special
    >> case, which it isn't --

    >
    >> mklibs

    >
    > Agreed. I already proposed (on IRC) to move that to directly below trunk as
    > well. Bastian replied that then lib-di should be moved as well, but that's
    > not comparable
    >
    > So, unless there are strong objections I will also move mklibs.
    > busybox, which is currently in people/waldi, should also be moved directly
    > below trunk when Bastian is ready to move it out of his people dir.


    I'm still of opinion to choose another dir for them. I've proposed[1]
    few alternatives for directory names but noone commented on them; the
    move has been done without a widely agreement from the team and people
    that were involved discussing on the thread didn't agree too (me
    included).

    It can be moved again, for sure, but as Joey has already spot this is
    another thing to worry when migrating from svn to .

    This enforces the need of those svn moves being betther thought to
    avoid double work.

    1. Message-ID: <87eja1me6x.fsf@ossystems.com.br>

    - --
    O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
    - ---------------------------------------------
    E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
    GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
    Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
    - ---------------------------------------------
    "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
    you the whole house."
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
    Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.8+

    iD8DBQFH6ZJULqiZQEml+FURAjvFAJ9UgdEcYUaa8UANmdUanv pnYCXSLgCeN8b6
    f8f3kq2vnSvOTepY2YIXv9E=
    =kAr3
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  2. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

    Quoting Otavio Salvador (otavio@debian.org):

    > I'm still of opinion to choose another dir for them. I've proposed[1]


    Depends if we have many of them or not. All propositions you made were
    indeed OK for me.


    > few alternatives for directory names but noone commented on them; the
    > move has been done without a widely agreement from the team and people
    > that were involved discussing on the thread didn't agree too (me
    > included).


    Well, that doesn't really makes a problem for me. Action was needed,
    Frans did the action...and even enforced the discussion by doing
    so..:-)...What would have happened if he hadn't? Very probably a dying
    discussion, all of us going back to our various tasks and nothing
    made.

    I'm all for action when a topic emerges (this is even something I
    debated with Frans sometimes because I'm often even more for immediate
    and quick action than he is...).

    > It can be moved again, for sure, but as Joey has already spot this is
    > another thing to worry when migrating from svn to .
    >
    > This enforces the need of those svn moves being betther thought to
    > avoid double work.



    I don't really understand why multiples moves are a problem for a
    future SCM change but, well, I'm mostly ignorant when it comes at
    these complicated things....

    About lost time: a "svn mv" is a matter of seconds, so we shouldn't
    worry that hard, I think.

    I still favor the move.



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFH6dml1OXtrMAUPS0RAhQOAJ9OVBQmJogd+bdTQNAKKt GvWOW1RACeI+Jk
    +QhtvQkL18Lhkno6x4ao/dg=
    =VkNQ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


  3. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

    Christian Perrier writes:

    > Quoting Otavio Salvador (otavio@debian.org):
    >
    >> I'm still of opinion to choose another dir for them. I've proposed[1]

    >
    > Depends if we have many of them or not. All propositions you made were
    > indeed OK for me.


    We already have:

    win32-loader
    busybox
    mklibs
    libdebian-installer (if we opt to move it too)


    >> few alternatives for directory names but noone commented on them; the
    >> move has been done without a widely agreement from the team and people
    >> that were involved discussing on the thread didn't agree too (me
    >> included).

    >
    > Well, that doesn't really makes a problem for me. Action was needed,
    > Frans did the action...and even enforced the discussion by doing
    > so..:-)...What would have happened if he hadn't? Very probably a dying
    > discussion, all of us going back to our various tasks and nothing
    > made.


    Sorry I disagree. We always preferred to hold changes until we get
    agreement. Many times it has been complained here by mistakes made by
    me, or others, and this is really serious when it has SCM metadata
    involved since it does complicate a future migration so it need to be
    well decided.

    > I'm all for action when a topic emerges (this is even something I
    > debated with Frans sometimes because I'm often even more for immediate
    > and quick action than he is...).


    Yes, sometimes it is really important and I agree that we shouldn't
    hold every action however a package move on SCM won't (and it didn't)
    change our lifes and neither solve any urgent trouble we were having
    so no reason to hurry with it.

    >> It can be moved again, for sure, but as Joey has already spot this is
    >> another thing to worry when migrating from svn to .
    >>
    >> This enforces the need of those svn moves being betther thought to
    >> avoid double work.

    >
    >
    > I don't really understand why multiples moves are a problem for a
    > future SCM change but, well, I'm mostly ignorant when it comes at
    > these complicated things....
    >
    > About lost time: a "svn mv" is a matter of seconds, so we shouldn't
    > worry that hard, I think.
    >
    > I still favor the move.


    I'm favor of the move but I think we should agree to _where_ it should
    be done.

    About the migration in SCM changes, it does matter.

    When we're migrating from SVN to another SCM we'll need to do partial
    migrations for all previous places the source where and do a move add
    another point where we'll need another migration.

    Example:

    r100:
    /packages/foo
    r101
    /trunk/foo

    If we were migrating foo, the source, we'd need to make a migration
    from r1 to r100 using /packages/foo, get the result and then do
    another migration using r101 /trunk/foo to allow it to continue to
    grab the code history.

    Now think about doing it for all moves since CVS, source renames, and
    wrong moves .. this can be really boring.

    --
    O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
    ---------------------------------------------
    E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
    GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
    Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
    ---------------------------------------------
    "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
    you the whole house."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  4. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

    On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:19:35AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
    > >> few alternatives for directory names but noone commented on them; the
    > >> move has been done without a widely agreement from the team and people
    > >> that were involved discussing on the thread didn't agree too (me
    > >> included).

    > >
    > > Well, that doesn't really makes a problem for me. Action was needed,
    > > Frans did the action...and even enforced the discussion by doing
    > > so..:-)...What would have happened if he hadn't? Very probably a dying
    > > discussion, all of us going back to our various tasks and nothing
    > > made.

    >
    > Sorry I disagree. We always preferred to hold changes until we get
    > agreement. Many times it has been complained here by mistakes made by
    > me, or others, [...]


    Since it sounds like I'm being implicitly referenced here, let me add to it
    that I don't feel the act of judging harshly someone's mistakes deserves a
    reciprocal response. So why not just ignore this and start afresh on what
    location is most suitable? FWIW, my only concern with regard to location is
    that it isn't changed every day, which I hope is not too demanding ;-)

    --
    Robert Millan

    I know my rights; I want my phone call!
    What use is a phone call… if you are unable to speak?
    (as seen on /.)


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  5. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

    Robert Millan writes:

    > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:19:35AM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
    >> >> few alternatives for directory names but noone commented on them; the
    >> >> move has been done without a widely agreement from the team and people
    >> >> that were involved discussing on the thread didn't agree too (me
    >> >> included).
    >> >
    >> > Well, that doesn't really makes a problem for me. Action was needed,
    >> > Frans did the action...and even enforced the discussion by doing
    >> > so..:-)...What would have happened if he hadn't? Very probably a dying
    >> > discussion, all of us going back to our various tasks and nothing
    >> > made.

    >>
    >> Sorry I disagree. We always preferred to hold changes until we get
    >> agreement. Many times it has been complained here by mistakes made by
    >> me, or others, [...]

    >
    > Since it sounds like I'm being implicitly referenced here, let me add to it
    > that I don't feel the act of judging harshly someone's mistakes deserves a
    > reciprocal response. So why not just ignore this and start afresh on what
    > location is most suitable? FWIW, my only concern with regard to location is
    > that it isn't changed every day, which I hope is not too demanding ;-)


    I wasn't implicitly referencing you but past decisions that are always
    discussed here in list. I used this to justify that we always try to
    get agreement before doing something even more when it's not urgent.

    --
    O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
    ---------------------------------------------
    E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
    GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
    Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
    ---------------------------------------------
    "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
    you the whole house."


    --
    To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
    with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

  6. Re: Proposal: move win32-loader in SVN repository

    Otavio Salvador wrote:
    > About the migration in SCM changes, it does matter.
    >
    > When we're migrating from SVN to another SCM we'll need to do partial
    > migrations for all previous places the source where and do a move add
    > another point where we'll need another migration.
    >
    > Example:
    >
    > r100:
    > /packages/foo
    > r101
    > /trunk/foo
    >
    > If we were migrating foo, the source, we'd need to make a migration
    > from r1 to r100 using /packages/foo, get the result and then do
    > another migration using r101 /trunk/foo to allow it to continue to
    > grab the code history.


    My experience with git-svn when converting my own package repository
    (which was converted strangely from cvs and moved lots of directories
    around) is that it did a great job of following the moves and collecting
    the whole history.

    I wasn't able to extract single packages from my combined repository
    into separated repositories using the svn admin tools (failed several
    times), but it was quite easy with git-svn.

    (Or possibly with the deprecated git-svnimport, I forget which..)

    --
    see shy jo

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFH6oeNd8HHehbQuO8RAgqLAKDc/bXGW7adosbTsegEAQMWVWW4xQCg1Oq1
    1gyzURE+VNdO9djMNU3UM4s=
    =s02N
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2