[arch-dev-public] Repo Distinctions

[Roman Kyrylych]

2007/10/17, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com>:
> Eric Belanger wrote:
> > Shouldn't the first step be to identify clearly what current or potential
> > problems are we trying to solve?  Maybe that whole repo reorganisation is
> > not needed after all.

Absolutely agree.

>
> Here are some I'm trying to solve:
>
> 1) Unclarity about what our committment is to packages in various
> repos. We need some clear way for the dev team to commit to
> maintaining a package in the long term, and some way to easily
> identify and track packages identified thusly.
>
> 2) Gross numbers of orphans everywhere and no clear method to follow
> to proceed to eliminate them on an ongoing basis. (not saying your
> proposal doesn't address this.. but you asked for the problem list)
>
> 3) Reducing the inefficiencies in the tools that developers and
> community members have at their disposal currently to contribute
> their stellar efforts for the benefit of everyone. Specifically:
>
> a) Moving packages from one repo to another is hard.
> b) Placing packages in multiple repos is hard.
> c) Continued separate-track development on a package while in
> testing is hard.
> d) Tracking multiple binary repos for different architectures is hard.
> e) Maintenance of a package by more than one person is hard.
>
> This is just a start. All of these goals can be served or affected
> by the choices we make for repo design.
>

This is OK, but this:

2007/10/17, Paul Mattal <paul at mattal.com>:
> Aaron Griffin wrote:
> >
> > What's the first step?
>
> Create [mantle]. Vote packages into it by 50%+ vote of dev team. See
> what happens and what is left in [extra]. Auction any orphans off to
> other devs and/or TUs to put in community.
>
> These would be the first few steps.

is absolutely bad as a first step.
I don't understand how this can be a good first step to archieve all
you wrote above.

> > If the main issue here is a potential increase in the number of orphans
> > after the current cleanup, I posted a simple solution in another thread
> > that would work with the current repo setup with zero work involved.
>
> This is one of the main issues, yes.
>
> > BTW, we should wait until the cleqanup/adoption is completed before doing
> > any repo work.
>
> That might make sense, depending on whether or not this would help
> or get in the way of the cleanup/adoption effort.

I agree with Eric here.
IMO package cleanup shouldn't wait for the result of this discussion.

-- 
Roman Kyrylych (Роман Кирилич)