Heh. This happens when you don't read all of your e-mails before
answering. So, here's a bit of copy 'n paste from my last message, and
some new thoughts.
On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:35 AM, Allan McRae
In the TU meetings there was some discussion about doing a rewrite/update/fix-up of the [community] back-end. I am not sure who all is looking at this and what the plans are - hence this email.
I think the only work done is in AUR2, but I don't know if they have touched the backend. Could any of the involved people update us on its status?
Can people who are looking at this or interested in looking at this give a ping back to this message with whatever plans you have or work you have already done.
From my lst mail: «This is a very important point, IMHO, which we need to discuss with the AUR2 guys. In fact I think we could, as we say in Italian, "catch two pigeons with one broad bean" :) and plan the backend changes to include the move to SVN. Personally, I'd like to see an independent RCS layer so that we won't see this situation again when we need to move to $ZOMGCOOLRCS.»
Things I want to flag: - we should get a git repo for a community-backend project on the arch server and separate this from the aur site code. - we should switch SCM tools from CVS. I am strongly in favour of using the same system as the main repos which would allow much code reuse and easily get us a testing repo for community packages. (No more big rebuild issues!).
Here I agree with Loui: it doesn't make sense to separate the AUR and the [community] backend, they are tightly coupled and so they should be. The risk is to break things if two groups move independently. And I'm not really sure we could reuse some code, but writing an SCM abstraction layer that makes us independent from CVS and SVN could be userful for the main repos, too. I don't think it's a stupid idea because we just need the basic operations that every SCM provides... Corrado