Re: Git migration completed
On 5/21/23 07:29, Levente Polyak wrote:
We are proud to announce that the migration to Git packaging succeeded! 🥳
A huge thank you for the massive detailed planning and successful execution - very, very much appreciated. Hope you all celebrate lots! best gene
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Genes Lists wrote:
On 5/21/23 07:29, Levente Polyak wrote:
We are proud to announce that the migration to Git packaging succeeded! 🥳
A huge thank you for the massive detailed planning and successful execution - very, very much appreciated.
Hope you all celebrate lots!
Congratulations to the successful migration! Since we from archlinux32 are basically end-to-end testing your git setup, I have two minor criticisms on the new setup / the transition (I really prefer the new setup over the old one, don't get me wrong!): 1st: It would have been nice to have some testing setup around, so we could have adapted our scripts beforehand. But maybe, the test repositories were around and I just didn't look hard enough. No heart feelings, here - our users are used to somewhat bigger latencies :-D 2nd: The mapping from pkgbase to the source repository is not clear. Most packages' repository is named exactly like the pkgbase. But when the pkgbase contains a "+", it is sometimes transcribed as "plus" (e.g. for libc++) and sometimes as "-" (e.g. for gtk2+extra). This makes automatic pulling of the needed repository unclean (we have to try several transcriptions, until one works). But as i previously said: all in all a nice layout - we don't have to clone two huge, quasi-arbitrarily-divided repositories - I was able to remove a lot of code from our buildmaster :-D regards, Erich a.k.a. deep42thought
Hi, On 22/05/2023 17:11, Erich Eckner wrote:
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Genes Lists wrote:
On 5/21/23 07:29, Levente Polyak wrote:
We are proud to announce that the migration to Git packaging succeeded! 🥳
A huge thank you for the massive detailed planning and successful execution - very, very much appreciated.
Hope you all celebrate lots!
Congratulations to the successful migration!
Since we from archlinux32 are basically end-to-end testing your git setup, I have two minor criticisms on the new setup / the transition (I really prefer the new setup over the old one, don't get me wrong!):
1st: It would have been nice to have some testing setup around, so we could have adapted our scripts beforehand. But maybe, the test repositories were around and I just didn't look hard enough. No heart feelings, here - our users are used to somewhat bigger latencies :-D
We had a test setup, it was posted on arch-dev-public maybe it wasn't viisble enough for archlinux32.
2nd: The mapping from pkgbase to the source repository is not clear. Most packages' repository is named exactly like the pkgbase. But when the pkgbase contains a "+", it is sometimes transcribed as "plus" (e.g. for libc++) and sometimes as "-" (e.g. for gtk2+extra). This makes automatic pulling of the needed repository unclean (we have to try several transcriptions, until one works).
Gitlab does not allow certain project names so we have a special mapping in our tooling sadly :( See these multiple sed's: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/devtools/-/blob/master/src/lib/api/gi... Good luck with getting arch32!
On Mon, 22 May 2023, Jelle van der Waa wrote:
Hi,
Hi,
On 22/05/2023 17:11, Erich Eckner wrote:
1st: It would have been nice to have some testing setup around, so we could have adapted our scripts beforehand. But maybe, the test repositories were around and I just didn't look hard enough. No heart feelings, here - our users are used to somewhat bigger latencies :-D
We had a test setup, it was posted on arch-dev-public maybe it wasn't viisble enough for archlinux32.
Yeah, foxboron already told me that on irc. I guess, it's not really "your fault", that we didn't notice it - my spare time is shrinking constantly.
2nd: The mapping from pkgbase to the source repository is not clear. Most packages' repository is named exactly like the pkgbase. But when the pkgbase contains a "+", it is sometimes transcribed as "plus" (e.g. for libc++) and sometimes as "-" (e.g. for gtk2+extra). This makes automatic pulling of the needed repository unclean (we have to try several transcriptions, until one works).
Gitlab does not allow certain project names so we have a special mapping in our tooling sadly :( See these multiple sed's:
https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/devtools/-/blob/master/src/lib/api/gi...
Ah, that's, what I need - thank you! :-) Naively, I was expecting a "repository-name column" next to the pkgbase, version, version-with-mangled-epoch and git-commit-hash columns in the state repository.
Good luck with getting arch32!
Thanks, much appreciated :-) We're also through with the git migration - now follows the package migration >:-) regards, Erich
participants (3)
-
Erich Eckner
-
Genes Lists
-
Jelle van der Waa