git conversion status

git conversion status

[Tom Tromey]

I've uploaded a new trial version of src.git.  In this version:

* I've done the conversion with all the email address updates
* I fixed the encoding problem that Andreas noted
* I've tested the commit scripts and believe they work reasonably well

Please give it a try.  I plan to "go live" soon.


This week I am going to convert DJ's sync scripts to work with git; and
also post the gdbadmin patches for review.


After that I think the conversion is complete.  My plan for the big
switch is here.  Pardon the detail, but I think this process can also
use a review, in case I've forgotten a step.

  **Note** that the CVS->git convert I am using is not incremental, so
  commit access will be down during the conversion.  Based on past
  conversions I'd say this will be a good part of one working day.

* Disable all commits to src CVS and rsync it locally
  This is needed in case someone modifies a file that will remain
  writable in CVS after the conversion; I want to ensure we get a
  sensible snapshot.
  The downtime here will be minimal for projects other than
  gdb+binutils.

* Undo most of the commit disabling, leaving just those to the relevant
  directories in the src CVS repository.

* Do the conversion, using the scripts I've written:
    https://github.com/tromey/gdb-git-migration
  These are well debugged at this point.

* Commit the git-related gdb and binutils patches to this new
  repository.

* Copy the converted repository back to sourceware.
  At this point git is live.

* Check in the web page changes

* Check in the gdbadmin changes

* Email Jim Meyering and ask him to disable the gdb.git and binutils.git
  mirroring

* Email Alan Modra and to switch his auto-commit script over

* Send out an announcement.

* Be around to fix bugs

Due to the final item I would like to do the conversion on a Monday, to
maximize the time I'll be available after the conversion.  I suggest
next Monday, October 21.

Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Fred Cooke]

I know you have your reasons for this, and I know the "fix"
is trivial, but are you *sure* calling it src is a good idea?

'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.

gnutils gnuutils binutilsgdb bfdtools etc, there has to be a
better choice than src even if "git clone URL binutils" is an
easy work around, the default should usually be "good enough"
and with 'src' the default is not good enough, IMO.

Other than that, I worship you! :-) <3

Fred.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> I've uploaded a new trial version of src.git.  In this version:
>
> * I've done the conversion with all the email address updates
> * I fixed the encoding problem that Andreas noted
> * I've tested the commit scripts and believe they work reasonably well
>
> Please give it a try.  I plan to "go live" soon.
>
>
> This week I am going to convert DJ's sync scripts to work with git; and
> also post the gdbadmin patches for review.
>
>
> After that I think the conversion is complete.  My plan for the big
> switch is here.  Pardon the detail, but I think this process can also
> use a review, in case I've forgotten a step.
>
>   **Note** that the CVS->git convert I am using is not incremental, so
>   commit access will be down during the conversion.  Based on past
>   conversions I'd say this will be a good part of one working day.
>
> * Disable all commits to src CVS and rsync it locally
>   This is needed in case someone modifies a file that will remain
>   writable in CVS after the conversion; I want to ensure we get a
>   sensible snapshot.
>   The downtime here will be minimal for projects other than
>   gdb+binutils.
>
> * Undo most of the commit disabling, leaving just those to the relevant
>   directories in the src CVS repository.
>
> * Do the conversion, using the scripts I've written:
>     https://github.com/tromey/gdb-git-migration
>   These are well debugged at this point.
>
> * Commit the git-related gdb and binutils patches to this new
>   repository.
>
> * Copy the converted repository back to sourceware.
>   At this point git is live.
>
> * Check in the web page changes
>
> * Check in the gdbadmin changes
>
> * Email Jim Meyering and ask him to disable the gdb.git and binutils.git
>   mirroring
>
> * Email Alan Modra and to switch his auto-commit script over
>
> * Send out an announcement.
>
> * Be around to fix bugs
>
> Due to the final item I would like to do the conversion on a Monday, to
> maximize the time I'll be available after the conversion.  I suggest
> next Monday, October 21.
>
> Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Tom Tromey]

Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.

I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".

I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
Time is running out for that though.

Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Jan-Benedict Glaw]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 756 bytes --]

On Mon, 2013-10-14 11:45:42 -0600, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
> Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.
> 
> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".
> 
> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
> Time is running out for that though.

Maybe just keep "src".  We're all used to it.  But after all, I'm
happy to see the conversion taking place. Thanks for the work!

MfG, JBG

-- 
      Jan-Benedict Glaw      jbglaw@lug-owl.de              +49-172-7608481
Signature of:                 Gib Dein Bestes. Dann übertriff Dich selbst!
the second  :

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: git conversion status

[Jan Kratochvil]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013 19:45:42 +0200, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
> Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.
> 
> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".
> 
> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.

Anything besides src, src is everywhere, like /usr/src, many packages have src
subdir etc.

("sourceware", "toolchain" etc.)


Jan

Re: git conversion status

[Andreas Schwab]

Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:

> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
> Time is running out for that though.

Renaming the repository will just change the URL, nothing else.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git conversion status

[Tom Tromey]

>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> writes:

Andreas> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
>> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
>> Time is running out for that though.

Andreas> Renaming the repository will just change the URL, nothing else.

Yeah, but that's enough given what is being requested.

Of course it also means I'll have to update all the docs and the helper
scripts.  I'm inclined not to do it unless a good name is suggested,
since it is more work.

Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Fred Cooke]

And default clone directory, too. Is sourceware likely to host other
GNU projects? If so, src is a bad name for that reason as well. It's a
poor UUID in general.

On Mon, Oct 14, 2013 at 10:02 PM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
>> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
>> Time is running out for that though.
>
> Renaming the repository will just change the URL, nothing else.
>
> Andreas.
>
> --
> Andreas Schwab, schwab@linux-m68k.org
> GPG Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
> "And now for something completely different."

Re: git conversion status

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".
> 
> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
> Time is running out for that though.

My preference remains "binutils+gdb".  Not "src", because this *isn't* the 
same as the existing repository - it's a more meaningful, more closely 
connected subset, without more loosely related things such as newlib mixed 
in (if newlib moves away from CVS, it would move to its own repository 
with whatever subset of directories is relevant to newlib, rather than 
sharing this one).

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: git conversion status

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
> Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.
>
> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".

Counter-argument:
I *prefer* src, exactly for that reason; "scripts expect that".

If you-all want binutils+gdb (or some other combination of their
names), I can live with that, but not another generic name just
because someone offers the opinion that "src is utterly
meaningless".  It's not: it's the default name of the check-out
directory of sourceware top-level...

brgds, H-P

Re: git conversion status

[Andreas Schwab]

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:

> It's not: it's the default name of the check-out directory of
> sourceware top-level...

It's the default name for anything you check out of it, making it
ambigous.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SUSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
GPG Key fingerprint = 0196 BAD8 1CE9 1970 F4BE  1748 E4D4 88E3 0EEA B9D7
"And now for something completely different."

Re: git conversion status

[Tim Sander]

Hi
> Counter-argument:
> I *prefer* src, exactly for that reason; "scripts expect that".
> 
> If you-all want binutils+gdb (or some other combination of their
> names), I can live with that, but not another generic name just
> because someone offers the opinion that "src is utterly
> meaningless".  It's not: it's the default name of the check-out
> directory of sourceware top-level...
Well the scripts have to be adapted to git anyway, so why not use a 
sensible repository path (think URL) and do the conversion on clone
git clone SENSIBLE_URL src
? So the scripts are happy and the url is descriptive.

Best regards
Tim

Re: git conversion status

[Joel Brobecker]

Hi Tom,

> After that I think the conversion is complete.  My plan for the big
> switch is here.  Pardon the detail, but I think this process can also
> use a review, in case I've forgotten a step.

One thing that would be helpful, at least for us, is if the old
git mirrors of the gdb & binutils CVS repositories updated up
to the point where you disabled commits in CVS, could stick around
for a while. This would help us manage the transition from one
repo to the next.

Other than that, the plan looks great, and I worship you too!
-- 
Joel

Re: git conversion status

[Tom Tromey]

Joseph> My preference remains "binutils+gdb".

The problem with this one is that it has to be URL-encoded, specifically
when referring to gitweb URLs, since the "+" appears in the query
component of the URL.  That makes it a pain to work with sometimes.

How about "binutils-gdb" instead?

Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Tom Tromey]

Joel> One thing that would be helpful, at least for us, is if the old
Joel> git mirrors of the gdb & binutils CVS repositories updated up
Joel> to the point where you disabled commits in CVS, could stick around
Joel> for a while. This would help us manage the transition from one
Joel> repo to the next.

Ok.  I'll hold off on asking Jim to decommission the old mirrors until
some time has passed.

Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Fred Cooke]

Yes, this! "binutils-gdb" works for me! :-)

On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 3:18 PM, Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> wrote:
> Joseph> My preference remains "binutils+gdb".
>
> The problem with this one is that it has to be URL-encoded, specifically
> when referring to gitweb URLs, since the "+" appears in the query
> component of the URL.  That makes it a pain to work with sometimes.
>
> How about "binutils-gdb" instead?
>
> Tom

Re: git conversion status

[Joseph S. Myers]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Joseph> My preference remains "binutils+gdb".
> 
> The problem with this one is that it has to be URL-encoded, specifically
> when referring to gitweb URLs, since the "+" appears in the query
> component of the URL.  That makes it a pain to work with sometimes.
> 
> How about "binutils-gdb" instead?

That's also fine with me.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com

Re: git conversion status

[Richard Sandiford]

Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@bitrange.com> writes:
> On Mon, 14 Oct 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:
>> Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
>> Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.
>>
>> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".
>
> Counter-argument:
> I *prefer* src, exactly for that reason; "scripts expect that".
>
> If you-all want binutils+gdb (or some other combination of their
> names), I can live with that, but not another generic name just
> because someone offers the opinion that "src is utterly
> meaningless".  It's not: it's the default name of the check-out
> directory of sourceware top-level...

+1 FWIW.  I don't mind what the thing's called, but renaming from
src feels like make-work.  And I disagree that "src is utterly
meaningless on any developer's machine".  It actually fits quite
nicely in a:

  binutils/
    src/
    mips64-linux-gnu/
    x86_64-linux-gnu/
    ...

layout.

I usually find I end up specifying a repo name explicitly
("git clone URL dir") with other projects anyway.

Richard

Re: git conversion status

[Stan Shebs]

On 10/14/13 10:45 AM, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Fred> 'git clone URL' will produce a directory called "src" which
> Fred> is utterly meaningless on any developer's machine.
> 
> I chose it because the existing repository is named "src".
> 
> I don't particularly care what the repository is named.
> If folks want to debate it, I will rename it to the winner.
> Time is running out for that though.

Then I better put in my vote for "src". :-)

My reasoning is that "src" has meant "binutils & GDB etc" for over 20
years now, and there is no other use of "src" in the GNU universe that
has designated or will designate a project or repo.  So in a sense it's
justifiable to "reserve" the term in this particular case.

Stan
stan@codesourcery.com

Re: git conversion status

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

On Tue, 15 Oct 2013, Tom Tromey wrote:

> Joseph> My preference remains "binutils+gdb".
>
> The problem with this one is that it has to be URL-encoded, specifically
> when referring to gitweb URLs, since the "+" appears in the query
> component of the URL.  That makes it a pain to work with sometimes.
>
> How about "binutils-gdb" instead?

Works for me.

brgds, H-P
PS. thanks again Tom!  BTW the src-release patch for sim.tar.bz2 is committed.