Hi all,
please note that we're planning to create a new top-level directory 'util' in svn where independant utilities (which are not tied to a certain LinuxBIOS version) will reside.
One of these utilities will be flashrom, but others will follow.
The new repository layout will look like this:
- trunk - LinuxBIOSv1 - LinuxBIOSv2 - LinuxBIOSv3 (later) - util - flashrom - ...
The current trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom will be moved into trunk/util per 'svn mv', so the history will remain intact.
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom will then become a svn:externals entry, that is, it will still _look_ like it's in the LinuxBIOSv2 tree, but it'll actually be checked out from trunk/util/flashrom.
LinuxBIOSv3 will probably also "get" flashrom via svn:externals into the util/flashrom directory.
The transition should be painless (a simple 'svn up' should do), but just in case there are problems, please make sure you save all pending flashrom patches/modifications you may have. If there are problems please let us know (try a fresh checkout before, though).
If nobody objects, I'll perform the required actions later this day or tomorrow.
Thanks, Uwe.
On Sat, Jun 30, 2007 at 09:02:54PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
Hi all,
please note that we're planning to create a new top-level directory 'util' in svn where independant utilities (which are not tied to a certain LinuxBIOS version) will reside.
One of these utilities will be flashrom, but others will follow.
The new repository layout will look like this:
- trunk
- LinuxBIOSv1
- LinuxBIOSv2
- LinuxBIOSv3 (later)
- util
- flashrom
- ...
The current trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom will be moved into trunk/util per 'svn mv', so the history will remain intact.
trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom will then become a svn:externals entry, that is, it will still _look_ like it's in the LinuxBIOSv2 tree, but it'll actually be checked out from trunk/util/flashrom.
LinuxBIOSv3 will probably also "get" flashrom via svn:externals into the util/flashrom directory.
I fully agree with the earlier stuff, but is there any reason to keep this in the v3 tree? People will not be that unhappy if they're required to pull in the flashrom utility seperately, and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
The transition should be painless (a simple 'svn up' should do), but just in case there are problems, please make sure you save all pending flashrom patches/modifications you may have. If there are problems please let us know (try a fresh checkout before, though).
If nobody objects, I'll perform the required actions later this day or tomorrow.
Thanks, Uwe.
Luc Verhaegen.
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:57PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
I fully agree with the earlier stuff, but is there any reason to keep this in the v3 tree? People will not be that unhappy if they're required to pull in the flashrom utility seperately,
I fully agree, it's not required. Some developers have expressed in the past that they like to keep all our code together in one 'svn co' bunch.
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
Uwe.
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 01:32:36AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 08:00:57PM +0200, Luc Verhaegen wrote:
I fully agree with the earlier stuff, but is there any reason to keep this in the v3 tree? People will not be that unhappy if they're required to pull in the flashrom utility seperately,
I fully agree, it's not required. Some developers have expressed in the past that they like to keep all our code together in one 'svn co' bunch.
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
Uwe.
I fully understand and support the v2 copy, but for v3 i don't see the point myself. Maybe other people have an opinion here.
Luc Verhaegen.
I don't care where flashrom is but it is really nice if ONE co is all that is needed to get all you need.
thanks
ron
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:19:12AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
I don't care where flashrom is but it is really nice if ONE co is all that is needed to get all you need.
To have that, and get _only_ what you need when you need the utilities they get their own repo. I think that makes the most sense logically too.
I am definately for the externals so they are pulled into both v2 and v3 co:s too.
How does updates and commits work for the external repo-in-the-repo?
//Peter
On Wed, Jul 04, 2007 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:19:12AM -0700, ron minnich wrote:
I don't care where flashrom is but it is really nice if ONE co is all that is needed to get all you need.
To have that, and get _only_ what you need when you need the utilities they get their own repo. I think that makes the most sense logically too.
I strongly disagree.
There's absolutely no gain in having different physical repositories. It's much better to have subdirectories in _one_ common repository.
You can do all you ever need this way:
Get v2: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/LinuxBIOSv2
Get only flashrom: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/util/flashrom
Get all utilities: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/util
Get everything (v2, v1, utilities, even v3 later): svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk
Having _different_ repositories will remove lots of advantages:
- Common code browser (in trac) for all our code.
- Common bug tracking system for all code.
(We'd have to set up a _separate_ trac instance for another repository; that's the reason why you can't file bugs against LinuxBIOSv3 and why you cannot view the v3 code in trac, currently)
We would then _not_ be able to move a bug report from one of the trac instances to the other, for example. We'd have to tell our users "no, not that trac, please report your bug in the other trac"...
- Moving code becomes a _lot_ harder if you have different repos. Now it's a simple 'svn mv' and you automatically preserve all history.
- You cannot easily do, say, 'svn log' or 'svn diff -r500:600' over all the code, you have to mess with _two_ repos...
The list goes on.
I am definately for the externals so they are pulled into both v2 and v3 co:s too.
How does updates and commits work for the external repo-in-the-repo?
Think symlinks. If you do 'cd util/flashrom' in v2 and change+commit things there, it'll be committed in flashrom (which is an svn:externals), not in v2.
'svn up' in v2 will update v2 _and_ automatically update flashrom, as it's an svn:external within v2.
Uwe.
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070704 01:28]:
Get v2: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/LinuxBIOSv2
Get only flashrom: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/util/flashrom
What was wrong with:
svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/LinuxBIOSv2/util/flashrom
??
Get everything (v2, v1, utilities, even v3 later): svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk
Nobody will ever do that. You need utilities with every version, but not all versions together.
Having _different_ repositories will remove lots of advantages:
- Common code browser (in trac) for all our code.
That could be fixed in trac
- Common bug tracking system for all code.
Is that a bug in trac?
- You cannot easily do, say, 'svn log' or 'svn diff -r500:600' over all the code, you have to mess with _two_ repos...
The list goes on.
What are the advantages of the move to a different directory though?
Think symlinks. If you do 'cd util/flashrom' in v2 and change+commit things there, it'll be committed in flashrom (which is an svn:externals), not in v2.
This is very implicit magic, I hope it wont bite us.
* Peter Stuge peter@stuge.se [070704 00:10]:
To have that, and get _only_ what you need when you need the utilities they get their own repo. I think that makes the most sense logically too.
I am definately for the externals so they are pulled into both v2 and v3 co:s too.
How does updates and commits work for the external repo-in-the-repo?
There is no external repository. Its just another directory in the v2 repository we are using for the external. It does not make any more sense than it did before, except cosmetics.
Stefan
* ron minnich rminnich@gmail.com [070703 18:19]:
I don't care where flashrom is but it is really nice if ONE co is all that is needed to get all you need.
I do care for flashrom, and I think it should be in v3 (using externals or not)
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070703 01:32]:
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
I like the way doing the forks as they really allow us to progress with new code while leaving old code intact. We can still make branches of the tree to simulate the old behavior, which is what we are going to do, after all.
and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
util in a seperate repo/directory is a bit hypothetic. It does not really gain us anything. Everyone does need lar, but should we pack lar and flashrom in the same repo because it sits in util?
Why would someone want lar when he attempts to download flashrom?
Why would someone not download flashrom? To save how many seconds?
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
There is no copy in v3?
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:41:19AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070703 01:32]:
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
I like the way doing the forks as they really allow us to progress with new code while leaving old code intact.
It may make sense for LinuxBIOS to "fork" as in "we don't modify v2 but start fresh with v3" from time to time when really big changes are needed.
It does not make sense for common, independant utilities such as flashrom. Flashrom works with v1, v2, and v3. Why should we fork it for every version?
I'm not saying to put _all_ utilities in there, if a tool is specific to a certain LinuxBIOS version, we should keep it in that code tree, of course. So 'newconfig' or 'optionlist' stays in v2. Also, 'kconfig' stays in v3, as we cannot sensibly use it in other versions (too many local v3-specific modifications).
But common utilities should be moved to the global util/ directory.
and i'm not sure, but i think that in some cases, the likes of uniflash can be used to flash a linuxbios too.
Definately, not everyone needs flashrom.
util in a seperate repo/directory is a bit hypothetic. It does not really gain us anything.
Yes, it does. We can put common utilities which are independent of LinuxBIOS-versions in there.
The alternative, just having another flashrom copy in v3 (for example), would basically fork flashrom and there's no reason to do that, only disadvantages.
Everyone does need lar, but should we pack lar and flashrom in the same repo because it sits in util?
Why would someone want lar when he attempts to download flashrom?
You don't have that problem, you can easily get flashrom without lar: svn co svn://linuxbios.org/repos/trunk/util/flashrom
Why would someone not download flashrom? To save how many seconds?
That's not the reason to do this stuff; you always get flashrom when you download v2 as it's an svn:externals. If we add it to v3, you'll always get flashrom when you checkout v3.
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
There is no copy in v3?
Not yet. Shall we add it?
Uwe.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 09:36:04AM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 06:41:19AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
- Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070703 01:32]:
I don't have a strong opinion either way (as long as we don't have _forks_ of code for v1 and v2, which is why we now use svn:externals).
I like the way doing the forks as they really allow us to progress with new code while leaving old code intact.
It may make sense for LinuxBIOS to "fork" as in "we don't modify v2 but start fresh with v3" from time to time when really big changes are needed.
It does not make sense for common, independant utilities such as flashrom. Flashrom works with v1, v2, and v3. Why should we fork it for every version?
Plus, flashrom has its uses outside linuxbios too. It's quite a few orders of magnitude harder to provide linuxbios support than it is to provide flashrom support for any board out there.
Luc Verhaegen.
* Uwe Hermann uwe@hermann-uwe.de [070705 09:36]:
I personally don't think there should be a place in the v3 tree for a utility like this, as it leads an almost completely independent life.
Yes, and it should. The copy in v2/v3 is merely there for convenience.
There is no copy in v3?
Not yet. Shall we add it?
Yes, please.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 08:58:37AM +0200, Stefan Reinauer wrote:
There is no copy in v3?
Not yet. Shall we add it?
Yes, please.
Acked-by: Stefan Reinauer stepan@coresystems.de
Done, r444.
Uwe.
-
Luc Verhaegen -
Peter Stuge -
ron minnich -
Stefan Reinauer -
Uwe Hermann