[gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 606 bytes --]

Hi,

as dev-util is really crowded, maybe splitting off a category for
source code management systems would be a good idea.  They are more
important today than some years ago.
 Are any of you against such a split? My proposal would be to call it
dev-scm and put all version controls, direct frontends, plugins and the
like into that.  Diffing tools or programs that only have some kind of
binding to a scm should stay in dev-util.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 10:07, Christian Faulhammer <fauli@gentoo.org> wrote:
> as dev-util is really crowded, maybe splitting off a category for
> source code management systems would be a good idea.  They are more
> important today than some years ago.
>  Are any of you against such a split? My proposal would be to call it
> dev-scm and put all version controls, direct frontends, plugins and the
> like into that.  Diffing tools or programs that only have some kind of
> binding to a scm should stay in dev-util.

I don't know that they're more important, but there are much more of
them, more people using them, and more tools. Great idea, +1 from me.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Ulrich Mueller]

>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:

> My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
> controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.

Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
language and with software configuration management.

Ulrich

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 604 bytes --]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:32:47 +0100
Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> > My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
> > controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.
> 
> Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
> language and with software configuration management.

And this is why the move wasn't done five years ago: by the time we'd
worked out everything we'd need to do by hand because epkgmove was
broken, the whole thing got bikeshedded to death.

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Alex Alexander]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 515 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 10:32:47AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> 
> > My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
> > controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.
> 
> Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
> language and with software configuration management.

Nice idea, +1.

I too prefer dev-vcs as the category name.

-- 
Alex Alexander :: wired
Gentoo Developer
www.linuxized.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 765 bytes --]

On 03/04/2010 11:35 AM, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:32:47 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>>> My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
>>> controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.
>>
>> Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
>> language and with software configuration management.
> 
> And this is why the move wasn't done five years ago: by the time we'd
> worked out everything we'd need to do by hand because epkgmove was
> broken, the whole thing got bikeshedded to death.
> 

I would let the people maintaining the packages in the new category
decide what to call it.

Regards,
Petteri


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 900 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 11:28, Petteri Räty <betelgeuse@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I would let the people maintaining the packages in the new category
> decide what to call it.

As the primary maintainer for mercurial, hgsubversion and hg-git, I
would prefer dev-vcs.

I wonder, would a Python re-implementation of git libraries belong in
dev-vcs or in dev-python (it's currently dev-python/dulwich)?

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 530 bytes --]

Hi,

Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@gentoo.org>:
> As the primary maintainer for mercurial, hgsubversion and hg-git, I
> would prefer dev-vcs.

 Yes, I agree now, too.
 
> I wonder, would a Python re-implementation of git libraries belong in
> dev-vcs or in dev-python (it's currently dev-python/dulwich)?

 Up to your common sense (I would go with dev-python).

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Ben de Groot]

On 4 March 2010 10:58, Alex Alexander <wired@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Nice idea, +1.
>
> I too prefer dev-vcs as the category name.

My thoughts exactly.

Cheers,
-- 
Ben de Groot
Gentoo Linux developer (qt, media, lxde, desktop-misc)
______________________________________________________

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Antoni Grzymala]

Ulrich Mueller dixit (2010-03-04, 10:32):

> >>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> 
> > My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
> > controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.
> 
> Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
> language and with software configuration management.

+1 for vcs for the above reason. Also, I think vcs is a more popular
acronym than scm (don't quote me on this, though :)).

-- 
[a]

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Jeroen Roovers]

On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 09:35:28 +0000
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@googlemail.com> wrote:

> And this is why the move wasn't done five years ago: by the time we'd
> worked out everything we'd need to do by hand because epkgmove was
> broken, the whole thing got bikeshedded to death.


https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56967

Re: [gentoo-dev] New category for version control

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 03/04/10 10:35, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010 10:32:47 +0100
> Ulrich Mueller <ulm@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 4 Mar 2010, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>>> My proposal would be to call it dev-scm and put all version
>>> controls, direct frontends, plugins and the like into that.

I like the idea, +1 from me


>> Better call it dev-vcs to avoid confusion with both the Scheme
>> language and with software configuration management.

Agreed, "scm" is a bad choice.


> And this is why the move wasn't done five years ago: by the time we'd
> worked out everything we'd need to do by hand because epkgmove was
> broken, the whole thing got bikeshedded to death.

So that's a great chance for all of us to prove we can do better this
time.  We have at least two more names in the pool:

  VCS = version control system/software
  RCS = revision control system/software

The former seems more common to me though the second seems prefered in
wikipedia:
- "Version_control" forwards to "Revision control"
- "Comparison of revision control software"
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_revision_control_software

I'd still propose "dev-vcs", unless someone spots something bad about it.



Sebastian

[gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 566 bytes --]

Hi,

Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org>:
> Agreed, "scm" is a bad choice.

 So it is really tracked in
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56967 now.  If there is
anything to comment do it there.  Anyone can start moving the packages
over properly to dev-vcs (with profiles/updates entries of course), just
make it know somehow when you are working on packages not maintained by
you.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 03/04/10 17:38, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org>:
>> Agreed, "scm" is a bad choice.
> 
>  So it is really tracked in
> http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=56967 now.  If there is
> anything to comment do it there.

Is that a good idea?
Maybe we should restrict the bug to status updates on moving and keep
discussions on here?


> Anyone can start moving the packages
> over properly to dev-vcs (with profiles/updates entries of course),

There seems to be a lot more to it:
- Updating eclasses?
- Updating documentation
- Updating reverse dependencies?
- Pushing news out to Gentoo users (and developers)
- Update package names used in Layman (my task)
- <more here>

What else can you think of?

Maybe make a new thread "dev-vcs migration roadmap" from here?



Sebastian

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Dirkjan Ochtman]

On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 17:47, Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org> wrote:
> There seems to be a lot more to it:
> - Updating eclasses?
> - Updating documentation
> - Updating reverse dependencies?
> - Pushing news out to Gentoo users (and developers)
> - Update package names used in Layman (my task)
> - <more here>

This is a good list, but it seems much easier to keep track of such a
list in a bug.

Cheers,

Dirkjan

[gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Christian Faulhammer]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 988 bytes --]

Hi,

Sebastian Pipping <sping@gentoo.org>:
> Is that a good idea?
> Maybe we should restrict the bug to status updates on moving and keep
> discussions on here?

 I don't expect too many discussions. :)

> > Anyone can start moving the packages
> > over properly to dev-vcs (with profiles/updates entries of course),
> 
> There seems to be a lot more to it:
> - Updating eclasses?
> - Updating reverse dependencies?

 That is the normal procedure when pkgmoving a package.  So nothing
special. :)

> - Updating documentation

 A simple grep for dev-util/ should be sufficient.

> - Pushing news out to Gentoo users (and developers)

 For what? pkgmove should handle that.
 
> - Update package names used in Layman (my task)

 Yes.

> What else can you think of?

 At the moment, nothing.

V-Li

-- 
Christian Faulhammer, Gentoo Lisp project
<URL:http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/lisp/>, #gentoo-lisp on FreeNode

<URL:http://gentoo.faulhammer.org/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: New category for version control

[Sebastian Pipping]

On 03/04/10 23:19, Christian Faulhammer wrote:
>  That is the normal procedure when pkgmoving a package.  So nothing
> special. :)

I'm a bit worried because I assume that moving packages is not an
everyday action for most developers.


>> - Pushing news out to Gentoo users (and developers)
> 
>  For what? pkgmove should handle that.

For the cases where being told works better than finding out yourself
the hard way.  I haven't thought to an end what cases that will be.



Sebastian