[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: pkg-gnome SVN layout



On Fri, Mar 09, 2007 at 09:43:49PM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
>  I see two reasons to have a trunk:
>  - we currently have no defined merge process, so we commit some changes
>    in unstable and other changes in experimental; we then have to guess
>    how to merge the branches together: merge from unstable to
>    experimental, or the other way around, or both ways...  This is
>    suboptimal and risky.
>  - we have no place to prepare the latest upstream development releases,
>    experimental only allows for one more GNOME series which is
>    currently GNOME 2.16

  - We have no way of tagging the packaging of ``older'' release which don't
    match the release branches. Or more practically we currently have G2.16
    nicely packages in experimental/unstable. But as G2.18 will be released in
    just a few days people will start packaging that obviously.. Now say at
    some point there is interest in starting an etch backport of G2.16 (because
    2.18 isn't as stable yet or for whatever reason), then it's ``hard'' to 
    decide what to use as a starting point for every packet.

>  Hence, I propose we switch to a layout with a trunk/ along the
>  branches, it could look like:
>     .
>     |-- experimental
>     |-- sarge
>     |-- trunk
>     `-- unstable
> 
> 
>  Using tags/ could be a nice addition as we currently don't have an easy
>  way to retrieve the debian/ of a package.  I understand it adds a
>  burden; I'm fine with or without, please voice your preference.

 For the reason i stated above, a tags/ dir would be a great addition. With
 tags for 2.16 in sight that would mean we would get the following:
    .
    |-- experimental
    |-- sarge
    |-- tags
    |   `-- G2.16 
    |-- trunk
    `-- unstable

>    It's also classical to have a branches/ dir, so we could switch to
>  a more traditional structure like:
>     .
>     |-- branches
>     |   |-- experimental
>     |   |-- sarge
>     |   `-- unstable
>     |-- tags
>     `-- trunk
> 
>  My personal preference goes to not having a "branches/" dir.

Agreed.. I don't think an extra sub-dir add value here


>  Finally, there is the question of the package types that we host under
>  pkg-gnome.  I think there are mainly three types:
>  - GNOME official packages
>  - random GNOME-ish officious packages (either from gnome.org or from
>    other sources)
>  - Debian packaging specific packages
> 
>  - use the current official/unofficial/debian split, layout 2:
>     .
>     |-- extra
>     |   |-- gksu
>     |   `-- rhythmbox
>     |-- official
>     |   |-- devhelp
>     |   |-- glib2.0
>     |   |-- nautilus
>     |   |-- pessulus
>     |   `-- pygtk
>     `-- debian-specific
>         `-- gnome-pkg-tools

  I prefer this one. It gives exactly the information i like to see :)


  After the conversion is done we should really _really_ document how people
  should work with it. I can trivially copy over the webgen infrastructure from
  pkg-telepathy, which makes it very easy to start a good looking page. So i
  guess we just need some people to write the actual documentation :)

  Sjoerd
-- 
Mathematics deals exclusively with the relations of concepts
to each other without consideration of their relation to experience.
		-- Albert Einstein



Reply to: