[arch-dev-public] Killing CVS [was: Status Report 2007-10-15]
aaronmgriffin at gmail.com
Mon Oct 29 13:00:11 EDT 2007
On 10/29/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2007 at 10:38:52AM -0500, Aaron Griffin wrote:
> > On 10/29/07, Jason Chu <jason at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > > And it helps to treat package repositories as branches... though... how do
> > > you know what PKGBUILD to use for a repository other than core/extra?
> > > There's a test_kernel24, test_kernel, and test_udev. Each of them have
> > > different versions of kernel24, kernel, and udev.
> > >
> > > In the svn suggestion, we're explicit about which version is in testing,
> > > how would we figure it out in git?
> > The intent is to actually have two different versions. If
> > 'test_kernel' and 'test_udev' spawned off their own mini-repos, each
> > would have a kernel24. They would need to be merged to the master
> > branch later.
> > When Dan and I talked about this, the whole purpose was experimental
> > features and/or rebuilds. Here's a use-case:
> > Paul makes his AUFS changes to the kernel on a test_aufs branch (which
> > may include the aufs and aufs-utils packages too). This allows the
> > normal kernel to continue on as planned. People test it, everyone
> > likes it, changes get rebased a few times, and eventually merged to
> > master.
> Ah, so this would get rid of the testing repo entirely. Instead we'd have
> "topic" package repos that would have specific changes contained within
> them. If that's the case, I like it.
In a way, yes. Depending on the nomenclature we use though, we could
always have a branch called "testing" that makes the testing repo.
It's a harder sell, but the functionality is there. How we actually
use it can be molded a little as we go.
More information about the arch-dev-public