Warner Losh wrote in <CANCZdfpNM19OyQtXH0OLHxzrQf4dqpBcRZzfBCuKfRyo5Wcziw_at_mail.gmail.com>: |> On Fri, Dec 25, 2020 at 2:41 PM Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen_at_sdaoden.eu> |> wrote: |>> Ulrich Spörlein wrote in |>> <X+ZUa7NyatH2ktYI_at_acme.spoerlein.net>: |>>|On Wed, 2020-12-23 at 15:35:45 +0100, Steffen Nurpmeso wrote: |>>|>Jeffrey Bouquet wrote in |>>|> <E1ks2I6-0005nh-BQ_at_rmmprod05.runbox>: |>>|>|On Wed, 23 Dec 2020 11:13:07 +0100, Johan Hendriks |>> <joh.hendriks_at_gmail.c\ |>>|>|om> wrote: |>>|>|> On 23/12/2020 09:49, Warner Losh wrote: |>>|>|>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2020, 1:48 AM Graham Perrin < |>> grahamperrin_at_gmail.com> \ |>>|>|>> wrote: |>>|> ... |>>|>|> First of all a big thank you for all your time and effort you and |>> all |>>|>|> the other people put in this tremendous task. |>>|> |>>|>Yes, it is great to have FreeBSD as a stable git repository now, |>> ... |>>|>I really dislike that vendor imports have been tagged. Because |>>|>there is only one tag namespace you cannot avoid getting all this |>>|>cruft. I mean, it is too late now, but one could have used ... |>>|That's basically what was done? I don't understand what you're saying |>>|here ... |>> |>> Well, cgit-beta did not have had all these tags if i recall |>> correctly, did it? I mean it has been two months or so since |>> i last had it because "git fetch" bailed here due to the errors |>> that i have reported, and fetching more than a gigabyte for |>> brand-new fetches devastates here. |> |> It had them, but not under the refs/head/vendor space but under the |> refs/vendor space. These are not tags but branches. I have nothing against the branches, of course. Only the tags are the problem. |> The multiple gigabyte fetch is because we changed the hashes two or three |> times in the last few months. Yes i know. No problem (well, for me, of course), i tried it at least once more by the end of November, but the server did not finish my request (the simple "git fetch" in a non-clean repo). |> But i _think_ all the tags below refs/tags/vendor/ like |>> |>> vendor/wpa/2.9 |>> vendor/wpa_supplicant/0.3.8 |>> vendor/wpa_supplicant/0.5.10 |>> vendor/wpa_supplicant/0.5.11 |>> vendor/x86emu/4.6 |>> vendor/xe/1.13 |>> |>> etc. did not exist in cgit-beta? I surely would have said |>> something once comments have been requested, wouldn't i? |> |> They did exist. They were under refs/vendor rather than refs/head/vendor |> though. Under refs/tags/vendor? refs/tags/ is the "special" namespace managed by "git tag", this is different than the rest. |>> The thing is if i do |>> |>> #?0|kent:free-src.git$ git ls-remote|wc -l |>> From https://git.freebsd.org/src.git |>> 6814 |>> |>> This is a tremendous amount of head references that need to be |>> compared. ... |>> there is |>> |>> #?0|kent:free-src.git$ git sr|wc -l |>> 2137 |>> |>> but if i go for "the real" FreeBSD itself it is just |>> |>> #?0|kent:free-src.git$ git sr | grep -v vendor | wc -l |>> 19 |> |You might be happier tracking on github, once we start pushing there as the |vendor branches won't be published there. No problem with any number of branches, Warner. Just tags under refs/tags this is above. ... |>> and thus |>> |>> #?0|kent:free-src.git$ git sr | grep vendor | wc -l |>> 2118 |>> |>> Which is a pity since all these references will be checked during |>> "git fetch" unless i am mistaken. |> |Yes. So far it's been doing it quite quickly for me, but I'm decently |connected... Yes, terrible here, shared with many. ... |>>|That's a valid point, we debated whether to keep vendor tags and |>> decided |>>|for now to replicate what we have in SVN. We can still delete all the |>>|vendor tags on the main repo anytime we want ... |>> |>> I personally would track that in the commit message of the import |>> on the vendor branch that anyway exists(!), and then when merging |>> this into the mainline, but not create a real tag in the tag |>> namespace. Also the backups/ and such, because why? |> |We need tags to keep track of what's been done, and to revert and do other |management things with vendor imports. But why? You have the commit on a topic/vendor branch, and you revert nothing but the commit. In fact doing so messes the tag, it has to be retagged when you do re-commit an import proper, which requires a forced push even! Ciao, --steffen | |Der Kragenbaer, The moon bear, |der holt sich munter he cheerfully and one by one |einen nach dem anderen runter wa.ks himself off |(By Robert Gernhardt)Received on Fri Dec 25 2020 - 21:25:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:41:26 UTC