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

Re: Switch to git after all?

On Sun, Apr 06, 2014 at 01:13:16PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> I'd welcome a switch to git.


> I advise against using git in some nonstandard way, such as only checking
> debian/ into the debian git repositories. There is a very wide range of
> tools for managing packages with git, and making this choice will close
> off using many of those tools, or require using them in nonstandard ways,
> and so eliminate many of the possible positive effects of switching to git
> in the first place.

I kindly disagree here. I'm not active that much, but for each of the
few uploads I did last year or before, I had to scratch my head and try
to remember the darcs commands to do it.

So, for individual as opposed to mass operation, even if git is used
only for debian/, I'd very much welcome that I can "git add; git commit;
git push" rather than whatever darcs needs.

That said, I would not mind at all if we use git with source checked in.
My point is that even for debian/, git would be much more easy for me to

> Joachim Breitner:
> > Also, I can have all our repos checked out without wasting
> > lots of space.
> The total decompressed size of every .orig.tar.gz of every haskell-*
> package currently in the archive (not just the most recent version)
> is 224 megabytes. But filesystems are inneficient for many small files,
> so if you unpack them all together, du will complain that 266M is used.
> This leaves out ghc (but I suspect you want the full source
> code for that) and various other packages not named haskell-*. Still,
> it's hard to imagine the total being more than a gigabyte or two.
> Hackage used to have a tarball of the full source of *every* package on
> it, and while I can't find that anymore, it was also of a tractable
> size.

I would like to add another reason to use full-source check-ins: once an
.orig.tar.gz is committed to git, it means we're only need Debian
infrastructure to work with things. It means that if hackage alters
(accidentally or maliciously) a past .tar.gz, we would be able to see

I think that's a good reason to check-in the source, especially as most
Haskell packages are small. Or maybe I just like a 2nd history tree for
.orig.tar.gz :)


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: