Re: src: continued use of Subversion for getting updates

From: Steffen Nurpmeso <steffen_at_sdaoden.eu>
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 2020 23:25:10 +0100
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