OK, not really a patch, but I think we can move lar into the global util/ directory and suck it into v3 via svn:externals.
That's a first step to make it independent of v3 (and to allow Jordan to use it in buildrom).
I'm waiting for comments or ACKs before doing this, though.
Uwe.
On 11/07/07 22:24 +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
OK, not really a patch, but I think we can move lar into the global util/ directory and suck it into v3 via svn:externals.
That's a first step to make it independent of v3 (and to allow Jordan to use it in buildrom).
I'm waiting for comments or ACKs before doing this, though.
No argument here... :)
Uwe.
http://www.hermann-uwe.de | http://www.holsham-traders.de http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org
-- linuxbios mailing list linuxbios@linuxbios.org http://www.linuxbios.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 10:24:52PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
OK, not really a patch, but I think we can move lar into the global util/ directory and suck it into v3 via svn:externals.
Yes. Is it a separate repo yet ? Or is it in the v2 repo? It is distinct from LB. No need to run abuild after util changes etc.
//Peter
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070711 22:24]:
OK, not really a patch, but I think we can move lar into the global util/ directory and suck it into v3 via svn:externals.
That's a first step to make it independent of v3 (and to allow Jordan to use it in buildrom).
I'm waiting for comments or ACKs before doing this, though.
Will this drop the history? If so, strong NACK.
It is NOT a generic utility yet.
Stefan
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 11:08:20AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070711 22:24]:
OK, not really a patch, but I think we can move lar into the global util/ directory and suck it into v3 via svn:externals.
That's a first step to make it independent of v3 (and to allow Jordan to use it in buildrom).
I'm waiting for comments or ACKs before doing this, though.
Will this drop the history? If so, strong NACK.
Ouch. I was about to say "yes, history is preserved", but I forgot that v3 is a _different_ repository at the moment! So no, we cannot just 'svn mv' lar easily (which is one of the many reasons why I object to different repos for our code).
You'd have to dump the v3 repository, and import it into the v2 repository (which I think we should do anyway) -- there are some tutorials on how to do that while preserving the history.
This has to be done by the admin (probably needs root access), and can _not_ be done by anybody with svn commit access (not if you want to preserve history, that is).
_Then_, it's a simple 'svn mv' to move lar into the global util/.
Oh, another possibility would be to just commit the current v3 code into the v2 repository (and dropping the history!) like this:
- trunk - LinuxBIOSv1 - LinuxBIOSv2 - LinuxBIOSv3 <----- commit v3 right into that directory - util
Yes, we would _not_ have the history in that new LinuxBIOSv3 directory. But maybe it's still an option, because we could leave the current extra v3 repo around as an "early development testbed" repository, so people can lookup the history there.
Comments? I'm fine with either of the two approaches.
It is NOT a generic utility yet.
Yep, but patches are floating in to make it generic :)
Uwe.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
You'd have to dump the v3 repository, and import it into the v2 repository (which I think we should do anyway)
At least we want to change the commit trigger so abuild doesn't run for anything but v2 commits then. Maybe this is done already? :)
-- there are some tutorials on how to do that while preserving the history.
Do you have URLs at hand?
This has to be done by the admin (probably needs root access), and can _not_ be done by anybody with svn commit access (not if you want to preserve history, that is).
Write access to the repo is probably enough, but that may mean root.
- trunk
- LinuxBIOSv3 <----- commit v3 right into that directory
Yes, we would _not_ have the history in that new LinuxBIOSv3 directory. But maybe it's still an option
The only reason for doing it that way is to get it done. I think it would be nice if we could get the history over. Dunno?
//Peter
* Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se [070712 19:57]:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 02:59:17PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
You'd have to dump the v3 repository, and import it into the v2 repository (which I think we should do anyway)
At least we want to change the commit trigger so abuild doesn't run for anything but v2 commits then. Maybe this is done already? :)
Not for util?
I think this is tough. If we pack lar there, v3 should definitely be recompiled when someone changes lar.
Inter-repo dependencies? Ouch.
-- there are some tutorials on how to do that while preserving the history.
Do you have URLs at hand?
It's not hard to merge two repos. It might mean that you guys all have to do a fresh checkout though... ;) So I better want to be very sure we all want this.
Yes, we would _not_ have the history in that new LinuxBIOSv3 directory. But maybe it's still an option
The only reason for doing it that way is to get it done. I think it would be nice if we could get the history over. Dunno?
If we really do so, we want the history over, yes. Definitely.
I'd rather go as far as moving util to the v3 tree (including history) and pushing off v1 and v2.
We seemed pretty sure we want a fresh repo and not just a fresh directory at the linuxbios symposium last year... did the mood change here?
On Thu, Jul 12, 2007 at 08:05:39PM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
At least we want to change the commit trigger so abuild doesn't run for anything but v2 commits then. Maybe this is done already? :)
Not for util?
I think this is tough. If we pack lar there, v3 should definitely be recompiled when someone changes lar.
Maybe, yes. But maybe this even works; depends on how the post-commit hooks "see" the changes in an svn:externals repo within v3.
But I agree that we could change the abuild hooks to only "fire" if there was a change in the LinuxBIOSv2/ directory or below.
For v3 there's no abuild at the moment anyway.
-- there are some tutorials on how to do that while preserving the history.
Do you have URLs at hand?
It's not hard to merge two repos. It might mean that you guys all have to do a fresh checkout though... ;) So I better want to be very sure we all want this.
Yep, if we want to take the history with us, then yes, I think we want this.
Yes, we would _not_ have the history in that new LinuxBIOSv3 directory. But maybe it's still an option
The only reason for doing it that way is to get it done. I think it would be nice if we could get the history over. Dunno?
If we really do so, we want the history over, yes. Definitely.
I'd rather go as far as moving util to the v3 tree (including history) and pushing off v1 and v2.
Uh, no, rather the other way around (merge v3 into the current v1/v2/util repo).
We seemed pretty sure we want a fresh repo and not just a fresh directory at the linuxbios symposium last year... did the mood change here?
Yep :) Mine changed definately.
Uwe.
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070712 21:11]:
But I agree that we could change the abuild hooks to only "fire" if there was a change in the LinuxBIOSv2/ directory or below.
For v3 there's no abuild at the moment anyway.
We'll try to build this up on Jordan's buildrom. Let's see how that works. Too many tools and ways to do it in v2.
If we really do so, we want the history over, yes. Definitely.
I'd rather go as far as moving util to the v3 tree (including history) and pushing off v1 and v2.
Uh, no, rather the other way around (merge v3 into the current v1/v2/util repo).
The seperate v3 repository was started exactly for the purpose of not having to cope with the v1 and v2 history all the time. Why would we undo this again?
Stefan
-
Jordan Crouse -
Peter Stuge -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann