From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Mon Jun 8 17:36:41 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E31C3336C97 for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 17:36:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [185.95.219.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.spoerlein.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49ggRF3mS9z46fr for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 17:36:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a05:fc87:1:5:0:0:0:15]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 058HZAQB062136 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:35:19 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 19:35:10 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Subject: When were the stable and release branches actually created? Message-ID: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49ggRF3mS9z46fr X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:39540, ipnet:185.95.219.0/24, country:CH] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2020 17:36:41 -0000 Hey folks I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the release CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would be really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 lines A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 line A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 line A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | 1 line A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | 1 line A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | 1 line A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | 1 line A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | 1 line A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | 1 line A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | 1 line A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | 1 line A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | 1 line A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | 1 line A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | 1 line A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 and 4.8 is highly bogus. Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need to trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 years later) Thanks Uli From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 04:25:22 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C2BC348385 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 04:25:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qk1-x731.google.com (mail-qk1-x731.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::731]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49gxqh5HHlz4VZJ for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 04:25:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qk1-x731.google.com with SMTP id 205so19632718qkg.3 for ; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 21:25:20 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=5pJ+uUhpSuNlHNWkqru8OUmOYyYNvM7uBuBNQ5HJAco=; b=o6Fw8yZ2jkt4Z0I4et95OPB+/WDCtEqHhjgxoKQDLaP2IsNmU1tRsypMSrTdMYuABV RLNPrsj5o3rICvoIVlLKbvlc/jap4KJHEowwBwQLv1ZQaYoVX83jQ4S+bXUl8R7/ki70 xmORo3Mw3beg/UB8WBU+JfBtiMu4eQNUAKzh9EyCQWUHjdveOGFoCA04u7LPxoLxhz7R AQWQkb7uZxIwABnZYU2K+5z8uzpVwW4H94T1w3tH23VuqAi0v5xFUTS6EN/mgzW0iBa5 MoXf0XplNPp5lnTU66jpwMP9VN4S6+pVBfCK77j2aJsd/nJPgLN9ROhfPPYIdvcsFIEj 7UMg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=5pJ+uUhpSuNlHNWkqru8OUmOYyYNvM7uBuBNQ5HJAco=; b=gkDh3f2AyBfCxs0U/szbcjWGadgiJLiWm1HlSCGew8IQXQZVkEsy1K5cnUgajtvDGo rGRhT7Fo/8MMJzkwuBgU4B68tV9JLjJrzOR9NTH62kIu3Yzvjb+wmZtaDiAOu5hX32KF 2ap1+hz7PO7Q6hVunJb/ilqHEJ6RyPV61vcF6a7V021CeRLbDLELb7CTTnISDAOGDbs1 Eh6gPi0oPvyqmLpGyKOZLsGDYMkb7ienzFDyiIoLTUtF0K+Nc2WVY33SSd+KKxHebJoQ pwFfZu/CeBVCztOkVOQqv6vRrKKE7MDk8v8yqAwZQ6AM9ApbSz/+ZexZA0qLCGDfQGpb fTrQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531Ru2Nl6k5vR7Vi721WHzNSHryrxjZDSnyY/nsL4UQyheLYcDcC /TNtBMk8GrCNdRk8goOrkiaVm5464ZX+7mVnIcoxjDx8 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw7dZlhUUo4juUzncmq4KQx0y2O19N5IjQ0m/2iH4bIag6eLbNZScqv2lIqs0gCG2ZKM01F8plBxf8ThhcdgzA= X-Received: by 2002:a37:392:: with SMTP id 140mr9482815qkd.495.1591676719257; Mon, 08 Jun 2020 21:25:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> In-Reply-To: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> From: Warner Losh Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2020 22:25:08 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= Cc: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49gxqh5HHlz4VZJ X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=o6Fw8yZ2; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::731) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.37 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.89)[-0.887]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.04)[-1.038]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::731:from]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.44)[-0.443]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 04:25:22 -0000 I'm unsure of this for sure. I have a vague memory that we created the release branches when we had patches for security advisories. But things are fuzzy. Maybe the security advisories would hold a clue... Maybe the dates line up there? At the very lease, it would let you know that we created an extra level of dots referenced in the patches there... This will let you know if this is a cvs2svn screw up, or a real artifact about the quirky nature of releases and security patches. CVS doesn't have super great fidelity in discovering tree-wide events due to small date skews as files are updated one at a time, each at the then-current gettimeofday(). Stable/5 was cut sometime after 5.2. That's legit timeline. 5 was smpng and it wasn't stable until two preview releases, and three actual releases into the process... Warner On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrot= e: > Hey folks > > I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the release > CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would be > really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various > branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. > > Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: > > r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 lines > A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) > r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 line > A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) > r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 line > A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) > r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | 1 line > A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) > r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | 1 line > A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) > r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line > A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) > r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line > A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) > r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line > A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) > r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | 1 line > A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) > r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | 1 line > A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) > r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | 1 line > A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) > r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line > A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) > r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line > A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) > r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | 1 line > A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) > r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | 1 line > A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) > r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | 1 line > A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) > r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | 1 line > A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) > r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | 1 line > A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) > r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line > A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) > r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line > A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) > r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line > A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) > r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line > A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) > r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line > A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line > A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line > A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line > A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) > r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | 1 line > A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) > r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line > A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) > r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line > A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) > > > I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened > (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 and > 4.8 is highly bogus. > > Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need to > trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? > > For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then > r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 years > later) > > Thanks > Uli > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-git@freebsd.org mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-git > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-git-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 12:50:21 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C4C32BFDB for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:50:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Received: from acme.spoerlein.net (acme.spoerlein.net [185.95.219.49]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "www.spoerlein.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49h92N4Z8Fz4WcF; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 12:50:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Received: from localhost (acme.spoerlein.net [IPv6:2a05:fc87:1:5:0:0:0:15]) by acme.spoerlein.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 059CmZLs091250 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:48:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from uqs@freebsd.org) Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 14:48:35 +0200 From: Ulrich =?utf-8?B?U3DDtnJsZWlu?= To: Warner Losh Cc: freebsd-git@freebsd.org, scottl@freebsd.org, peter@freebsd.org, kensmith@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? Message-ID: <20200609124835.GC3195@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.2 (2019-09-21) X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49h92N4Z8Fz4WcF X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; local_wl_from(0.00)[freebsd.org]; ASN(0.00)[asn:39540, ipnet:185.95.219.0/24, country:CH] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 12:50:21 -0000 Adding Scott, Ken and Peter who might have some vague recollections. Please see below. On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 22:25:08 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > I'm unsure of this for sure. > > I have a vague memory that we created the release branches when we had patches > for security advisories. But things are fuzzy. Maybe the security advisories > would hold a clue... Maybe the dates line up there? > > At the very lease, it would let you know that we created an extra level of dots > referenced in the patches there... This will let you know if this is a cvs2svn > screw up, or a real artifact about the quirky nature of releases and security > patches. CVS doesn't have super great fidelity in discovering tree-wide events > due to small date skews as files are updated one at a time, each at the > then-current gettimeofday(). > > Stable/5 was cut sometime after 5.2. That's legit timeline. 5 was smpng and it > wasn't stable until two preview releases, and three actual releases into the > process... > > Warner > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > > Hey folks > > I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the release > CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would be > really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various > branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. > > Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: > > r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 lines >    A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) > r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 line >    A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) > r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 line >    A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) > r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | 1 line >    A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) > r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | 1 line >    A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) > r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line >    A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) > r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) > r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) > r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) > r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) > r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) > r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) > r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) > r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) > r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) > r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | 1 line >    A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) > r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) > r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) > r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line >    A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) > r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) > r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) > r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line >    A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) > r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line >    A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line >    A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line >    A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) > r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | 1 line >    A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) > r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | 1 line >    A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) > r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line >    A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) > r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | 1 line >    A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) > > > I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened > (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 and > 4.8 is highly bogus. > > Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need to > trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? > > For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then > r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 years > later) > > Thanks > Uli It's fairly easy to guess the true branchpoint by looking at the size of the tree. Taking 6.1 for example. SVN mentions it first in r147908 in 2005, but that commit basically deletes 99% of everything and accumulates a bunch of files here and there till r158179 on 2006-04-30 when 99% of the files are being brought back. Ignoring the fact that re-writing git notes is a pain in the neck, we could easily munge all the previous commits together into a single commit on the 2006-04-30 after the full conversion run. Or, as an alternative, make r147908 *not* branch off of stable/6 and keep it free-dangling, but then have r158179 record stable/6 as of 2006-04-30 as a parent commit. That could be done in-line and not mess with the iterative conversion as much. What I would need to know is at what stage and on which branch things like newvers.sh were modified. Because for 6.1 the change of newvers.sh to 6.1-RC came in with r157593 on 2006-04-08 (so not the big massive commit on 2006-04-30). Later on 2006-04-30 it was then bumped to RC2 with r158153. Scott, Ken, what was standard practice back in the day? Was there ever a single file branched off to releng/x.y before the big tagging of the full tree? Or can I really take the massive commit of r158179 to mean the branch was tagged and all other schmutz either happened on stable/x and later got its tag moved or was a repo-copy? Is there a way to get the dates from the email archives? Does someone have a full copy of those? Thanks a lot Cheers Uli From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 22:32:39 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E88233F1C5 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:32:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from smtp-out-no.shaw.ca (smtp-out-no.shaw.ca [64.59.134.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "Client", Issuer "CA" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hPyG0xDwz3dVy; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:32:37 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cy.schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from spqr.komquats.com ([70.67.125.17]) by shaw.ca with ESMTPA id imnJjfcNm62brimnLjGYC6; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 16:32:36 -0600 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=LKf9vKe9 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:117 a=VFtTW3WuZNDh6VkGe7fA3g==:17 a=xqWC_Br6kY4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=nTHF0DUjJn0A:10 a=6I5d2MoRAAAA:8 a=YxBL1-UpAAAA:8 a=EkcXrb_YAAAA:8 a=bMRgnhZ18TBxFXEBUVQA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=IjZwj45LgO3ly-622nXo:22 a=Ia-lj3WSrqcvXOmTRaiG:22 a=LK5xJRSDVpKd5WXXoEvA:22 Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (slippy [IPv6:fc00:1:1:1::5b]) by spqr.komquats.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B714310; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from slippy.cwsent.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 059MWWrp074763; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:32:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Received: from slippy (cy@localhost) by slippy.cwsent.com (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) with ESMTP id 059MWWao074759; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 15:32:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com) Message-Id: <202006092232.059MWWao074759@slippy.cwsent.com> X-Authentication-Warning: slippy.cwsent.com: cy owned process doing -bs X-Mailer: exmh version 2.9.0 11/07/2018 with nmh-1.7.1 Reply-to: Cy Schubert From: Cy Schubert X-os: FreeBSD X-Sender: cy@cwsent.com X-URL: http://www.cschubert.com/ To: Ed Maste cc: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Beta git conversion available for experimentation In-reply-to: References: Comments: In-reply-to Ed Maste message dated "Wed, 27 May 2020 13:26:25 -0400." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:32:32 -0700 X-CMAE-Envelope: MS4wfO+MN5Qe3uKwsWyO+HEabEtaUPr0ZCPnLmYNY//YzPEmR5babeH55vNYYylHfCz5TAzNQrPI5MKwSeGdUAWxDhI655mV+i6VIYkb+hZizWfT6Zq+xB2Q xedQ3lEODjvgxPeIY6WZ15e/vfQD7UALVp71JJY/or2a9sweVHJyjNpGsJ0ygNf5uKhmKNhkQiUV/UI7OWsD05l2zejAOnBw0UA= X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hPyG0xDwz3dVy X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of cy.schubert@cschubert.com has no SPF policy when checking 64.59.134.13) smtp.mailfrom=cy.schubert@cschubert.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.39 / 15.00]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.00)[Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[5]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MV_CASE(0.50)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; HAS_XAW(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[cschubert.com: no valid DMARC record]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.70)[-0.700]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[70.67.125.17:received]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.81)[-0.808]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.18)[-0.177]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:6327, ipnet:64.59.128.0/20, country:CA]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW(-0.10)[64.59.134.13:from] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:32:39 -0000 In message , Ed Maste writes: > I'm pleased to share the Git Working Group's beta version of the > FreeBSD doc, ports, and src repositories. You can browse the > repositories at: > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ > > and the three individual repositories are: > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/doc/ > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ports/ > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/src/ > > Compared to the current git mirror repos (on GitHub) Ulrich has put in > a lot of effort to fix svn2git (svn-all-fast-export) to handle > mergeinfo and address other issues, so that the git conversion > correctly represents vendor branch merges, tag operations, etc. This > work is still ongoing as we work through the long tail of oddities in > our Subversion history, so a caution is in order: > > THE GIT HASHES IN THESE REPOSITORIES WILL CHANGE! > > These are for experimental purposes only at this point, and should not > yet be used for production purposes. > > An initial goal is to have maintainers of 3rd party ("contrib") > software in FreeBSD clone and check the history of their individual > components, and to start experimenting with managing vendor branches > in the git model. A lot more detail will be provided in the near > future, but I wanted to share the repository links so that interested > parties can start working with these new repos. Do we have any doc on managing contrib using the git model? -- Cheers, Cy Schubert FreeBSD UNIX: Web: https://FreeBSD.org NTP: Web: https://nwtime.org The need of the many outweighs the greed of the few. From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 22:37:54 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F339F33F59C for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:37:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qt1-x82c.google.com (mail-qt1-x82c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hQ4L0c49z3dps for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:37:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qt1-x82c.google.com with SMTP id y1so255407qtv.12 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:37:53 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=N6HJ7lhq1E3NaFPx6eMudZDmqSu9o8QAxKLUjRrR/Kc=; b=Ql/kS8YE1v9z5Xqrz/hbxppKxvpcmIJjPa3FkNqkE7R4LqQ0XsA5vG83HBQf7R0eWD bjLpHqvh32wPo2mp1Bz+ZyUAGkfFTNq5i/M6I3qsYcQW6/jdlj7+lHK5AR89eZBiEGcT /XSSfi+W9TSAqcqh3AIPf8ZE67l7+aRalP36FCwIAjJRlCG6ZJiTfPOET9HZOtUffoln JnUPk1rEAxRevK3Vf5llwEdeeJ44lKZu0YYquU96QeFMSZbhZ2QrMxUMijW5LRkq1ycB Ynfgg8qoNTXWPsrPh+C8MC5YOXgSHssDr/HtgJhQcl7V8PLGfDGhNcx0zRAc0C5wsHCg 1U7A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=N6HJ7lhq1E3NaFPx6eMudZDmqSu9o8QAxKLUjRrR/Kc=; b=o6iqiuHQYsZqANS4W3OdMcgpxsvJRKzZ6m1tKodOq2CRgtuW/ZAu5uz8aET1oMwtvw YjuKKNmSiixwNLRksru65pQrbks5ouFwYdwvU9oP/1yY7ylwjFeUWiqCkVdm1Hq/QLvV /estpnCO2fCsF5+5mMVaa21rnEt61XWyUqGftDltnBbl6+ZHtAwYS6proiW2hTAzAjMP ONjDzZRsyGPfgvHw1Xw9DDiChjfx34nGzypU8/KsUK5Vk1L0ZjmvMVD55BuFNZY7E+fd JFvbSDF91hJrvfBH3902Vy2uDylH0s9I8DUQk9A2wJk2O86Y50dg+CWWpN0YuPSKuRjY eSsw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530WEia9cBLORA/QlcyMqQ/nKZag5Za1nrtMbbZTvKn+hVjqXe6u y3heUl1ZgRTAO7KmICLAZQiOjWmp7ijeGTDJyO72mgxT X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxGxDvZYfb/0Y+pHQYNveGxzjN1wDiVS36kLZD6sPashrNqG1rCkpM7F04FvMJ2uNTDwbXnLV13oMjmkO0tci0= X-Received: by 2002:aed:2d87:: with SMTP id i7mr174317qtd.291.1591742272787; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:37:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> <20200609124835.GC3195@acme.spoerlein.net> <55F5631D-663A-4EEC-A21F-EB1F543CD230@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <55F5631D-663A-4EEC-A21F-EB1F543CD230@samsco.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:37:41 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: Scott Long Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= , freebsd-git@freebsd.org, Scott Long , Peter Wemm , kensmith@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hQ4L0c49z3dps X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=Ql/kS8YE; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.25 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.87)[-0.866]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.79)[-0.792]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.59)[-0.595]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::82c:from]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:37:55 -0000 Thanks Scott. I suspected that we'd done things to destroy data and it's not easy to recover. Thanks for confirming that was the case. Warner On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:11 AM Scott Long wrote: > TLDR: don=E2=80=99t worry about 4, 5, or 6. Start the git repo at the 1= 1-stable > branch point, not at the beginning of time. Let the old SVN repo be the > read-only source of truth for 10.x and prior. > > In the CVS days, we made it a practice to =E2=80=9Cslip tags=E2=80=9D whe= n we wanted a new > revision to be part of an existing branch or release. The effect of that > might > be what you=E2=80=99re seeing for 4.10 vs 4.11. You are correct that 5-S= TABLE > wasn=E2=80=99t > tagged until 5.2. I don=E2=80=99t remember what happened with 6-STABLE a= nd 6.1, > and my email archives from that time period are lost. > > I=E2=80=99ve gone through source control switches several times at severa= l > companies, > and it=E2=80=99s always not worth the pain to do a conversion of the old = system. > We=E2=80=99ve > found that it=E2=80=99s best to start the new repo with little or no hist= ory, and > leave the > old repo as a read-only archive. Interactive repo history is typically > only useful > for a few months, and after 6-12 months its use drops off rather > exponentially. > The effort required to curate the repo transposition is not worth it. > Also, as someone who still regularly fouls up git repos and needs to wipe > and > restart them, having a smaller repo with less ancient history makes > downloading > and managing it easier. > > My recommendation is to start a new repo with HEAD as of the FreeBSD 10, > branch point, which then tracks 12-CURRENT and all branches onwards. Tha= t > covers the need to do MFCs to 11-STABLE. People that want to examine old= er > history can use a read-only copy of SVN. Given that 10.x is coming up on= 8 > years old, and everything prior is obviously even older, that=E2=80=99s a > reasonable > amount of history to have in Git. > > > Scott > > > > On Jun 9, 2020, at 6:48 AM, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrot= e: > > > > Adding Scott, Ken and Peter who might have some vague recollections. > Please > > see below. > > > > On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 22:25:08 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> I'm unsure of this for sure. > >> > >> I have a vague memory that we created the release branches when we had > patches > >> for security advisories. But things are fuzzy. Maybe the security > advisories > >> would hold a clue... Maybe the dates line up there? > >> > >> At the very lease, it would let you know that we created an extra leve= l > of dots > >> referenced in the patches there... This will let you know if this is a > cvs2svn > >> screw up, or a real artifact about the quirky nature of releases and > security > >> patches. CVS doesn't have super great fidelity in discovering tree-wid= e > events > >> due to small date skews as files are updated one at a time, each at th= e > >> then-current gettimeofday(). > >> > >> Stable/5 was cut sometime after 5.2. That's legit timeline. 5 was smpn= g > and it > >> wasn't stable until two preview releases, and three actual releases > into the > >> process... > >> > >> Warner > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein > wrote: > >> > >> Hey folks > >> > >> I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the relea= se > >> CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would = be > >> really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various > >> branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. > >> > >> Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: > >> > >> r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 > lines > >> A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) > >> r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) > >> r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) > >> r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) > >> r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) > >> r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) > >> r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) > >> r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) > >> r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) > >> r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) > >> r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) > >> r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) > >> r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) > >> r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) > >> r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) > >> r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) > >> r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) > >> r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) > >> r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) > >> r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) > >> r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) > >> r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) > >> r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) > >> r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) > >> r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) > >> > >> > >> I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened > >> (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 a= nd > >> 4.8 is highly bogus. > >> > >> Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need > to > >> trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? > >> > >> For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then > >> r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 yea= rs > >> later) > >> > >> Thanks > >> Uli > > > > > > It's fairly easy to guess the true branchpoint by looking at the size o= f > > the tree. Taking 6.1 for example. SVN mentions it first in r147908 in > > 2005, but that commit basically deletes 99% of everything and > > accumulates a bunch of files here and there till r158179 on 2006-04-30 > > when 99% of the files are being brought back. > > > > Ignoring the fact that re-writing git notes is a pain in the neck, we > > could easily munge all the previous commits together into a single > > commit on the 2006-04-30 after the full conversion run. > > > > Or, as an alternative, make r147908 *not* branch off of stable/6 and ke= ep > > it free-dangling, but then have r158179 record stable/6 as of 2006-04-3= 0 > > as a parent commit. That could be done in-line and not mess with the > > iterative conversion as much. > > > > What I would need to know is at what stage and on which branch things > > like newvers.sh were modified. Because for 6.1 the change of newvers.sh > > to 6.1-RC came in with r157593 on 2006-04-08 (so not the big massive > > commit on 2006-04-30). Later on 2006-04-30 it was then bumped to RC2 wi= th > > r158153. > > > > Scott, Ken, what was standard practice back in the day? Was there ever > > a single file branched off to releng/x.y before the big tagging of the > > full tree? Or can I really take the massive commit of r158179 to mean > > the branch was tagged and all other schmutz either happened on stable/x > > and later got its tag moved or was a repo-copy? > > > > Is there a way to get the dates from the email archives? Does someone > > have a full copy of those? > > > > Thanks a lot > > > > Cheers > > Uli > > From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 22:40:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABC1D33F553 for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:40:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qv1-xf43.google.com (mail-qv1-xf43.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f43]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hQ7d0B90z3fHK for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:40:44 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qv1-xf43.google.com with SMTP id x16so182986qvr.3 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:40:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:cc; bh=gXC5CNR/poVuItXcJZFzzkORpJLj7hNLk5mkUuMqaC8=; b=zqsHlb+Y6hxttIXHIB0k9VMX3fWZc5WKiQ5WiK4rUaLRHPaSs5pziLqKrawpON6jN/ Mxyn6XL0kdOyHdC2bMMHckE1AS5kicRlxVhRGCBOZZRbaGL6Otxwu6JPBL6tOuLCPshh GU/x5eokHrK4vvDtD44wUA7ZcNat2u4+UcDNkm5iFwwh+N2+toX/woZmWikkgUc3Gew+ gdk+OZZfxESLWKXp99PB41ChUyqvurBXC5dWibZByI3yGkoUEyri1b1fMnk2m0MXsV+Y ZqNPa7kvqa8RdUyfiQYhqOTd9tAZPUlnWqFdg/szr0b2x8EWBM79hQDngsYP/WmF7wRH nYEg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:cc; bh=gXC5CNR/poVuItXcJZFzzkORpJLj7hNLk5mkUuMqaC8=; b=Eyva1xRFyA3qK10UxQzDNdOMATLJU74Rk+qzR//IxrasiSQFmE4IdxkPRWNBtwC+DQ qv6YNtlEyjttYvNJKH5GJkbNk+zNR+tY1g+GKdEd0usK7SiGPMexfsEdRYciMJI7BaSF P3lceHBPVQkhn2M1aGU5Bna8AfkiK6e7ANqyAOwtMVDdvCTAOzI2fMwFzsejYhj5xCt2 AQk0LLrSHNT1+azg8BB3Qooi//VSuTQckf0ZKbijGvOAy5Hs5uDF4/Vb8yedF5GcSvcw JcGBdPO9fIKl/ErtRgs/fxLKEMCQVRZp29hsWy7ADE957E/+tS4RurWDgKYHf+M8dVMj f9ag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533MJQsvMDY4kpKAZqyDBnFKp6ESXXCYsY8jyHl0XPZe+G37W9Pg q16zBPRkpnJiEmnvkbFivJ2jp2srhcI/JzTPLjRJzw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:17cb:: with SMTP id cu11mt396396qvb.202.1591742443827; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:40:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> <20200609124835.GC3195@acme.spoerlein.net> <55F5631D-663A-4EEC-A21F-EB1F543CD230@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <55F5631D-663A-4EEC-A21F-EB1F543CD230@samsco.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:40:32 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= , freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hQ7d0B90z3fHK X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=zqsHlb+Y; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::f43) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.99 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.80)[-0.800]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.60)[-0.600]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.61)[-0.610]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::f43:from]; MISSING_TO(2.00)[]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:40:45 -0000 Sounds like the release branch points are on a 'best effort' and we not spend any more time on them than what the script produces by default at this point. Tags were moved, which destroyed data. It may be possible with a lot of effort to get it back, but I agree with Scott that it's not worth the hassle to find things with that level of nuance. That also suggests trying to use the old CD images to recover a 'release tag checkout' also is doomed to failure for similar reasons. Warner On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:11 AM Scott Long wrote: > TLDR: don=E2=80=99t worry about 4, 5, or 6. Start the git repo at the 1= 1-stable > branch point, not at the beginning of time. Let the old SVN repo be the > read-only source of truth for 10.x and prior. > > In the CVS days, we made it a practice to =E2=80=9Cslip tags=E2=80=9D whe= n we wanted a new > revision to be part of an existing branch or release. The effect of that > might > be what you=E2=80=99re seeing for 4.10 vs 4.11. You are correct that 5-S= TABLE > wasn=E2=80=99t > tagged until 5.2. I don=E2=80=99t remember what happened with 6-STABLE a= nd 6.1, > and my email archives from that time period are lost. > > I=E2=80=99ve gone through source control switches several times at severa= l > companies, > and it=E2=80=99s always not worth the pain to do a conversion of the old = system. > We=E2=80=99ve > found that it=E2=80=99s best to start the new repo with little or no hist= ory, and > leave the > old repo as a read-only archive. Interactive repo history is typically > only useful > for a few months, and after 6-12 months its use drops off rather > exponentially. > The effort required to curate the repo transposition is not worth it. > Also, as someone who still regularly fouls up git repos and needs to wipe > and > restart them, having a smaller repo with less ancient history makes > downloading > and managing it easier. > > My recommendation is to start a new repo with HEAD as of the FreeBSD 10, > branch point, which then tracks 12-CURRENT and all branches onwards. Tha= t > covers the need to do MFCs to 11-STABLE. People that want to examine old= er > history can use a read-only copy of SVN. Given that 10.x is coming up on= 8 > years old, and everything prior is obviously even older, that=E2=80=99s a > reasonable > amount of history to have in Git. > > > Scott > > > > On Jun 9, 2020, at 6:48 AM, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wrot= e: > > > > Adding Scott, Ken and Peter who might have some vague recollections. > Please > > see below. > > > > On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 22:25:08 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: > >> I'm unsure of this for sure. > >> > >> I have a vague memory that we created the release branches when we had > patches > >> for security advisories. But things are fuzzy. Maybe the security > advisories > >> would hold a clue... Maybe the dates line up there? > >> > >> At the very lease, it would let you know that we created an extra leve= l > of dots > >> referenced in the patches there... This will let you know if this is a > cvs2svn > >> screw up, or a real artifact about the quirky nature of releases and > security > >> patches. CVS doesn't have super great fidelity in discovering tree-wid= e > events > >> due to small date skews as files are updated one at a time, each at th= e > >> then-current gettimeofday(). > >> > >> Stable/5 was cut sometime after 5.2. That's legit timeline. 5 was smpn= g > and it > >> wasn't stable until two preview releases, and three actual releases > into the > >> process... > >> > >> Warner > >> > >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein > wrote: > >> > >> Hey folks > >> > >> I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the relea= se > >> CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would = be > >> really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various > >> branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. > >> > >> Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: > >> > >> r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 > lines > >> A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) > >> r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) > >> r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) > >> r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) > >> r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) > >> r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) > >> r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) > >> r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) > >> r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) > >> r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) > >> r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) > >> r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) > >> r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) > >> r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) > >> r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) > >> r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) > >> r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) > >> r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) > >> r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) > >> r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) > >> r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) > >> r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) > >> r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) > >> r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) > >> r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | = 1 > line > >> A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) > >> r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | = 1 > line > >> A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) > >> > >> > >> I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened > >> (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 a= nd > >> 4.8 is highly bogus. > >> > >> Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need > to > >> trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? > >> > >> For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then > >> r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 yea= rs > >> later) > >> > >> Thanks > >> Uli > > > > > > It's fairly easy to guess the true branchpoint by looking at the size o= f > > the tree. Taking 6.1 for example. SVN mentions it first in r147908 in > > 2005, but that commit basically deletes 99% of everything and > > accumulates a bunch of files here and there till r158179 on 2006-04-30 > > when 99% of the files are being brought back. > > > > Ignoring the fact that re-writing git notes is a pain in the neck, we > > could easily munge all the previous commits together into a single > > commit on the 2006-04-30 after the full conversion run. > > > > Or, as an alternative, make r147908 *not* branch off of stable/6 and ke= ep > > it free-dangling, but then have r158179 record stable/6 as of 2006-04-3= 0 > > as a parent commit. That could be done in-line and not mess with the > > iterative conversion as much. > > > > What I would need to know is at what stage and on which branch things > > like newvers.sh were modified. Because for 6.1 the change of newvers.sh > > to 6.1-RC came in with r157593 on 2006-04-08 (so not the big massive > > commit on 2006-04-30). Later on 2006-04-30 it was then bumped to RC2 wi= th > > r158153. > > > > Scott, Ken, what was standard practice back in the day? Was there ever > > a single file branched off to releng/x.y before the big tagging of the > > full tree? Or can I really take the massive commit of r158179 to mean > > the branch was tagged and all other schmutz either happened on stable/x > > and later got its tag moved or was a repo-copy? > > > > Is there a way to get the dates from the email archives? Does someone > > have a full copy of those? > > > > Thanks a lot > > > > Cheers > > Uli > > From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Tue Jun 9 22:48:34 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 781FA33F98A for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:48:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qt1-x82b.google.com (mail-qt1-x82b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hQJd71TFz3g0N for ; Tue, 9 Jun 2020 22:48:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qt1-x82b.google.com with SMTP id u17so326196qtq.1 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:48:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=6H2KCAHCrkvnuZulBWzNZQ0rST4s1FsUzDvn0O+WqYw=; b=Aab1cIzVIVzar9/PztUq2PfFZ3zVDeFKhp2T2io8nFfgWtSpA9O1P5T/vCNlwq3BaX nUo2N/xEghXfsCTre4MasViCcSmQkryluMCpaCYh2ULWrprvYZflId4x5mvzqcqA41UE 5We/hJnuDtU9yclpm6Kwph0/S8STstJ3Q7xhjPG2UZ1kPwxuQVmfB8pOfgsaP1tSr/Ty AHdeBYHwu1QTQ4W+bCXOUCA6dtMfTsC2B3aoY9pAaiYL1+VWEGl8YszMcuF8So+rmSAS eL2Fo3J8nvjyXu4gPBOPRQza6HggSbGrL5KiNshnfwxExmb2vfAtEKJXThxxG6XVEEDL gFJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=6H2KCAHCrkvnuZulBWzNZQ0rST4s1FsUzDvn0O+WqYw=; b=cZgnA28Svy5djl5CcHxAKSONDUzl2L9wc1bwkzagNXjjaoqaWPf/PtQtRf/u0I5unM O5U5NYQoDgXhQ/pUBMPO88dKP1/Mp/UDaZV+Z1tMblHbmqzNZ9agq4fOlWIuixUItUFH ZrcwX8ToozzJQqWY43o50fWUXVDhJDBkQ7Vd77Xg2RIoYXcxOWvEo/rupKgj9Dt+yaZS nQ46tr+7asQi+E9Yp0b3WmZqwIrTSn2U9tlBpgkPP6/C6gbdhAx2pkeqGtRtPWyEFI9q les679s4EqDhHnt4Tua+PY72MZI1O7yQOyXJYbygAxTuq5NJmuXBOIuegT9dgSeRkE89 ztMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530AM4skmoWxxJu23bWlOUplvW1BtvmjuogB0ELSLoVRdsI79UZb QWF9uatMDhkKJqyxC+bey6ygfv/qjg5FyglJ8fJlDKpZ X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz+KgbtuHVc6S+LRCVEsiaIWPbdd1d2DnepOFY0hVyHT2HCEpalEbrfMp8AycLoIfunM8dGAnzhwIS3l+nkXf8= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:192c:: with SMTP id t41mr240227qtj.32.1591742913130; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 15:48:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202006092232.059MWWao074759@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: <202006092232.059MWWao074759@slippy.cwsent.com> From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 16:48:22 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Beta git conversion available for experimentation To: Cy Schubert Cc: Ed Maste , freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hQJd71TFz3g0N X-Spamd-Bar: -- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=Aab1cIzV; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-2.39 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.96)[-0.955]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.89)[-0.888]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.55)[-0.547]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::82b:from]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 09 Jun 2020 22:48:34 -0000 On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:32 PM Cy Schubert wrote: > In message > om> > , Ed Maste writes: > > I'm pleased to share the Git Working Group's beta version of the > > FreeBSD doc, ports, and src repositories. You can browse the > > repositories at: > > > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ > > > > and the three individual repositories are: > > > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/doc/ > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/ports/ > > https://cgit-beta.freebsd.org/src/ > > > > Compared to the current git mirror repos (on GitHub) Ulrich has put in > > a lot of effort to fix svn2git (svn-all-fast-export) to handle > > mergeinfo and address other issues, so that the git conversion > > correctly represents vendor branch merges, tag operations, etc. This > > work is still ongoing as we work through the long tail of oddities in > > our Subversion history, so a caution is in order: > > > > THE GIT HASHES IN THESE REPOSITORIES WILL CHANGE! > > > > These are for experimental purposes only at this point, and should not > > yet be used for production purposes. > > > > An initial goal is to have maintainers of 3rd party ("contrib") > > software in FreeBSD clone and check the history of their individual > > components, and to start experimenting with managing vendor branches > > in the git model. A lot more detail will be provided in the near > > future, but I wanted to share the repository links so that interested > > parties can start working with these new repos. > > Do we have any doc on managing contrib using the git model? > We're working on our suggested best practices. We're making sure that the early testing we did to come up with the basics can be replicated easily enough for it to be practical. There will be a doc going over all the following in detail, but here's the outline. git subtree allows one to merge in other repos into our main repo w/o users of that repo needing to grab the merged in repos. We plan on making what we call vendor branches today vendor repos. We'd then do a git subtree merge from that repo as it tracks upstream. There's a number of tricky cases to work out and to make sure work before we can write it all up as a chapter in our "freebsd developer git guide" that we'll be producing. Warner From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 02:41:07 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463FC345337 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:41:07 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qk1-x72b.google.com (mail-qk1-x72b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hWSy37Ypz4Q6Y for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:41:06 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qk1-x72b.google.com with SMTP id b27so720029qka.4 for ; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:41:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=oAhIHxvY6Uz5SLTyvGAk7ijat7mfBguoUHBByHYe6sg=; b=0ZORtHwKR6JXc/lLiKY/oMvy6Swbv6cYjzQf3R9MqFN0SToRwjD1FDQ1AvndthMsOW qV8dJbyiR9UokP0N511QPvy+ysydtpFpCFU8yWKa9lAhUXBeOtUJ1k/zM3fg0JIK33cY lJdqH7Tad2VMKqh5oJSGHN4QDsFzDwB5LdcexPPSS/PqpoZuPmiXbnKIurlxHvoEIAe5 TC0nwerclbjnFGjTG+CPsmgzK3oS/RL/WgmPSwEoZbed3lpSNTEU29IkH5Br6NO9i1wb uK4NkJrFSbA1pbh1tMv7vhltOalgacH3IHJzgZPsxi0jXKV6e28aOmyWIPrP/TYWGpN+ p4ZQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=oAhIHxvY6Uz5SLTyvGAk7ijat7mfBguoUHBByHYe6sg=; b=Iu8L8MMHuIvmrALvTIeF6c2aB/EHCB76SZjGrZ2/ZMfp7tWatuFN7u5z1AWwYm+mi5 KICw02De30SkHIKNyeTvxGmuNbvHvc2oAQ6/ne0XhuRJVjPjYOKlicXwD1OLMY4nG9xv eKxarxazuYd4LbFyjzqPBmkIf5Lm1Rzd6ZHO2d/vFEGzmWqoVYQI7ysfctIgFISnWugh lwqUM8d2pSpwqSIspbcuYIVYvlEvpd2f+yVBzpmaojJaqXMW/By+bOiUJCbRTug6QEaR 1MRmSaJdPu+7XHsArBoWtCyhkjoT4hzIhANxIzdXE6RrYflhkBO1dctl3MTwkOh4vV/K ukyg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5300l0vdWvG3BJYbaZF6QOMf1E7NE6uTKNfylX2E7y69eUkvcy5g Chyiiserv3lYC2D3UjlP+LMv0CXs9uVPqFdd4V/vXQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwoZ9qfbqSXp701v3/8/KZOk5Emt5ZF7XcF5MwSICTBL3VdS5+VbLJDmL8OtQFTop6mw0VxmRt10Bs7kg9wawg= X-Received: by 2002:a37:ef18:: with SMTP id j24mr952219qkk.380.1591756865373; Tue, 09 Jun 2020 19:41:05 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2020 20:40:54 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: Scott Long Cc: =?UTF-8?Q?Ulrich_Sp=C3=B6rlein?= , freebsd-git@freebsd.org, Scott Long , Peter Wemm , kensmith@freebsd.org, Sean Chittenden X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hWSy37Ypz4Q6Y X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=0ZORtHwK; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.92 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.88)[-0.884]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.73)[-0.727]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.31)[-0.314]; RCPT_COUNT_SEVEN(0.00)[7]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::72b:from]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:41:07 -0000 On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:13 PM Scott Long wrote: > It=E2=80=99s best to leave the old history as it is and not try to replic= ate it or > detangle it. If anything, it=E2=80=99s a signpost the the old ways of doi= ng things > were not right, should not be reminisced over fondly, and certainly shoul= d > be taken as a warning to do things better going forward. > Yes. Understood. If it were easy to get, we'd grab it. If it's hard, like this one, we're leaving it behind... > I can=E2=80=99t stress enough that trying to import the entire history of= svn and > cvs into git is a bad idea. Please don=E2=80=99t do it. Don=E2=80=99t l= et perfect be the > enemy of good; allow people to be unhappy that the repo history isn=E2=80= =99t > perfect and unified, and move on. Please please please. > We're on the same page here. We've grabbed the relatively easy 95%. If it's easy to include, we're doing it. If it requires heroics, we're leaving it aside. The mainline conversion is done, and Ulrich is just making sure... The history we've published is reasonably complete but not perfect. We also know the repo is a little large and have looked at ways of subsetting should performance demand it. The current repo is 3/4 the size of the Linux kernel, so it's still in the 'sane' range as generally defined by the git folks :). However, there's a number of ways git will let you do a shallow clone for people with limited network and git is flexible about stitching together repos should we need to more generally subset and fight through that set of issues. If you notice any performance or other issues with the beta repo, please let us know. Warner Scott > > On Jun 9, 2020, at 4:37 PM, Warner Losh wrote: > > =EF=BB=BF > Thanks Scott. I suspected that we'd done things to destroy data and it's > not easy to recover. Thanks for confirming that was the case. > > Warner > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 11:11 AM Scott Long wrote: > >> TLDR: don=E2=80=99t worry about 4, 5, or 6. Start the git repo at the = 11-stable >> branch point, not at the beginning of time. Let the old SVN repo be the >> read-only source of truth for 10.x and prior. >> >> In the CVS days, we made it a practice to =E2=80=9Cslip tags=E2=80=9D wh= en we wanted a new >> revision to be part of an existing branch or release. The effect of tha= t >> might >> be what you=E2=80=99re seeing for 4.10 vs 4.11. You are correct that 5-= STABLE >> wasn=E2=80=99t >> tagged until 5.2. I don=E2=80=99t remember what happened with 6-STABLE = and 6.1, >> and my email archives from that time period are lost. >> >> I=E2=80=99ve gone through source control switches several times at sever= al >> companies, >> and it=E2=80=99s always not worth the pain to do a conversion of the old= system. >> We=E2=80=99ve >> found that it=E2=80=99s best to start the new repo with little or no his= tory, and >> leave the >> old repo as a read-only archive. Interactive repo history is typically >> only useful >> for a few months, and after 6-12 months its use drops off rather >> exponentially. >> The effort required to curate the repo transposition is not worth it. >> Also, as someone who still regularly fouls up git repos and needs to wip= e >> and >> restart them, having a smaller repo with less ancient history makes >> downloading >> and managing it easier. >> >> My recommendation is to start a new repo with HEAD as of the FreeBSD 10, >> branch point, which then tracks 12-CURRENT and all branches onwards. >> That >> covers the need to do MFCs to 11-STABLE. People that want to examine >> older >> history can use a read-only copy of SVN. Given that 10.x is coming up o= n >> 8 >> years old, and everything prior is obviously even older, that=E2=80=99s = a >> reasonable >> amount of history to have in Git. >> >> >> Scott >> >> >> > On Jun 9, 2020, at 6:48 AM, Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein wro= te: >> > >> > Adding Scott, Ken and Peter who might have some vague recollections. >> Please >> > see below. >> > >> > On Mon, 2020-06-08 at 22:25:08 -0600, Warner Losh wrote: >> >> I'm unsure of this for sure. >> >> >> >> I have a vague memory that we created the release branches when we ha= d >> patches >> >> for security advisories. But things are fuzzy. Maybe the security >> advisories >> >> would hold a clue... Maybe the dates line up there? >> >> >> >> At the very lease, it would let you know that we created an extra >> level of dots >> >> referenced in the patches there... This will let you know if this is = a >> cvs2svn >> >> screw up, or a real artifact about the quirky nature of releases and >> security >> >> patches. CVS doesn't have super great fidelity in discovering >> tree-wide events >> >> due to small date skews as files are updated one at a time, each at t= he >> >> then-current gettimeofday(). >> >> >> >> Stable/5 was cut sometime after 5.2. That's legit timeline. 5 was >> smpng and it >> >> wasn't stable until two preview releases, and three actual releases >> into the >> >> process... >> >> >> >> Warner >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 11:36 AM Ulrich Sp=C3=B6rlein >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Hey folks >> >> >> >> I'm investigating why the SVN repo differs from what's on the >> release >> >> CVS ISOs and of course you'll shout "CVS repo copies" but it would >> be >> >> really helpful if there was a record of when in time the various >> >> branches were created. Because SVN just ain't right. >> >> >> >> Here's the pre-SVN stable and releng branch creations in SVN: >> >> >> >> r8869 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 07:50:54 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 2 >> lines >> >> A /stable/2.0.5 (from /head:8852) >> >> r8882 | cvs2svn | 1995-05-30 10:29:08 +0200 (Tue, 30 May 1995) | 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/2.0.5 (from /head:8881) >> >> r9211 | cvs2svn | 1995-06-13 20:05:17 +0200 (Tue, 13 Jun 1995) | 1 >> line >> >> A /stable/2.1 (from /head:9202) >> >> r19327 | cvs2svn | 1996-11-02 11:41:29 +0100 (Sat, 02 Nov 1996) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /stable/2.2 (from /head:19320) >> >> r42951 | cvs2svn | 1999-01-21 01:55:31 +0100 (Thu, 21 Jan 1999) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /stable/3 (from /head:42948) >> >> r57955 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:44 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /stable/4 (from /head:57954) >> >> r57956 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:45 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/4.4 (from /stable/4:57955) >> >> r57960 | cvs2svn | 2000-03-13 05:59:49 +0100 (Mon, 13 Mar 2000) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/4.5 (from /stable/4:57955) >> >> r63491 | cvs2svn | 2000-07-19 08:22:02 +0200 (Wed, 19 Jul 2000) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/4.6 (from /stable/4:63490) >> >> r66473 | cvs2svn | 2000-09-30 04:49:38 +0200 (Sat, 30 Sep 2000) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/4.7 (from /stable/4:66472) >> >> r75750 | cvs2svn | 2001-04-21 02:04:30 +0200 (Sat, 21 Apr 2001) | = 1 >> line >> >> A /releng/4.3 (from /stable/4:75749) >> >> r101416 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:47 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/4.11 (from /stable/4:101415) >> >> r101418 | cvs2svn | 2002-08-06 10:24:49 +0200 (Tue, 06 Aug 2002) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/4.9 (from /stable/4:101415) >> >> r107811 | cvs2svn | 2002-12-13 07:54:34 +0100 (Fri, 13 Dec 2002) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.0 (from /head:107810) >> >> r108855 | cvs2svn | 2003-01-07 05:28:56 +0100 (Tue, 07 Jan 2003) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/4.10 (from /stable/4:108854) >> >> r111744 | cvs2svn | 2003-03-02 17:42:41 +0100 (Sun, 02 Mar 2003) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/4.8 (from /stable/4:111743) >> >> r115436 | cvs2svn | 2003-05-31 13:28:29 +0200 (Sat, 31 May 2003) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.1 (from /head:115435) >> >> r123193 | cvs2svn | 2003-12-07 04:02:28 +0100 (Sun, 07 Dec 2003) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.2 (from /head:123192) >> >> r133968 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:05 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | >> 1 line >> >> A /stable/5 (from /head:133920) >> >> r133969 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:06 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.3 (from /stable/5:133968) >> >> r133971 | cvs2svn | 2004-08-18 18:37:08 +0200 (Wed, 18 Aug 2004) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.4 (from /stable/5:133968) >> >> r147906 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:43 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | >> 1 line >> >> A /stable/6 (from /head:147905) >> >> r147907 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:44 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/6.0 (from /stable/6:147906) >> >> r147908 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:45 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/6.1 (from /stable/6:147906) >> >> r147921 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:58 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/6.2 (from /stable/6:147906) >> >> r147922 | cvs2svn | 2005-07-11 06:14:59 +0200 (Mon, 11 Jul 2005) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/6.3 (from /stable/6:147906) >> >> r158462 | cvs2svn | 2006-05-12 03:09:20 +0200 (Fri, 12 May 2006) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/5.5 (from /stable/5:158461) >> >> r172506 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:15 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | >> 1 line >> >> A /stable/7 (from /head:172505) >> >> r172507 | cvs2svn | 2007-10-10 18:59:16 +0200 (Wed, 10 Oct 2007) | >> 1 line >> >> A /releng/7.0 (from /stable/7:172506) >> >> >> >> >> >> I think stable/5 being created after 5.2 is what actually happened >> >> (IIRC), but 4.3 getting created after 4.7 and 4.11 predating 4.10 >> and >> >> 4.8 is highly bogus. >> >> >> >> Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I nee= d >> to >> >> trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? >> >> >> >> For example, in the releng/4.11 branch it gets first deleted, then >> >> r138454 brings it back on 2004-12-06 14:39:45 (that's about 2.3 >> years >> >> later) >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> Uli >> > >> > >> > It's fairly easy to guess the true branchpoint by looking at the size = of >> > the tree. Taking 6.1 for example. SVN mentions it first in r147908 in >> > 2005, but that commit basically deletes 99% of everything and >> > accumulates a bunch of files here and there till r158179 on 2006-04-30 >> > when 99% of the files are being brought back. >> > >> > Ignoring the fact that re-writing git notes is a pain in the neck, we >> > could easily munge all the previous commits together into a single >> > commit on the 2006-04-30 after the full conversion run. >> > >> > Or, as an alternative, make r147908 *not* branch off of stable/6 and >> keep >> > it free-dangling, but then have r158179 record stable/6 as of 2006-04-= 30 >> > as a parent commit. That could be done in-line and not mess with the >> > iterative conversion as much. >> > >> > What I would need to know is at what stage and on which branch things >> > like newvers.sh were modified. Because for 6.1 the change of newvers.s= h >> > to 6.1-RC came in with r157593 on 2006-04-08 (so not the big massive >> > commit on 2006-04-30). Later on 2006-04-30 it was then bumped to RC2 >> with >> > r158153. >> > >> > Scott, Ken, what was standard practice back in the day? Was there ever >> > a single file branched off to releng/x.y before the big tagging of the >> > full tree? Or can I really take the massive commit of r158179 to mean >> > the branch was tagged and all other schmutz either happened on stable/= x >> > and later got its tag moved or was a repo-copy? >> > >> > Is there a way to get the dates from the email archives? Does someone >> > have a full copy of those? >> > >> > Thanks a lot >> > >> > Cheers >> > Uli >> >> From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 02:44:48 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D504F345434 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from smtp.freebsd.org (smtp.freebsd.org [96.47.72.83]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hWYD5B0Sz4Q8Q for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from weatherwax.trouble.is (weatherwax.trouble.is [IPv6:2a00:1098:82:3a::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "weatherwax.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: philip/mail) by smtp.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 96D5B2C6BE for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from philip@freebsd.org) Received: from rincewind.trouble.is (rincewind.trouble.is [95.216.22.234]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client CN "rincewind.trouble.is", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by weatherwax.trouble.is (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hWYB4LLDz10jQ for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rincewind.trouble.is (Postfix, authenticated sender philip) id 49hWY86MPfz2DsV; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:44 +0000 (UTC) From: "Philip Paeps" To: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:44:40 +0800 X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett X-Mailer: MailMate (1.13.1r5690) Message-ID: <3F6FCE62-A5F1-433F-B215-B137AC4C4CD7@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> References: <20200608173510.GB3195@acme.spoerlein.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 02:44:48 -0000 On 2020-06-09 01:35:10 (+0800), Ulrich Spörlein wrote: > Is there a record of when these things actually happened? Do I need to > trawl through newvers.sh for all of these? I was going to suggest "check the re@ archives". Unfortunately they only go back to 2013. Perhaps someone who was on re@ before then still has the archives in their mailbox. We also have archives of the cvs commits mailing lists. They might shed some light. Philip -- Philip Paeps Senior Reality Engineer Alternative Enterprises From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 13:56:45 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B15334DE6 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:56:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-il1-f180.google.com (mail-il1-f180.google.com [209.85.166.180]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hpSX1hMTz41xX for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:56:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-il1-f180.google.com with SMTP id 18so1949741iln.9 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:56:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Arlz8iHUf6lq+0jNJl0IuzolDHzVPtfM5iqN/RVxTn8=; b=JPxXlD53YnawwM3OV1XRP7/q3XZ6dkRwA/3FE/DCiWV0cOA8a+o8fCtJkaccsH0Vgz Ht3sxN2/Mhi6fedoHW1HKV1HsZGbL1DtebKeYPqhWeNGZ1f0Ppff2HCOf3EJao98tomz f4xTGniLbJBLMZFtuSIS0Z2j335CwFcv7+DJG7BpDtm33o0Sjm/D+svoNSyyd9Qj+x76 78tifFrSKLvCLRS2tcUWLZNOMgO3u7u/c+l1TB7wHvi0T+YvbWmqFq6JcTIAkJT+ZK6O T/XH5qUS1Y9SsBbBVE4nUrDbUUBdsAjnem8PgTVvHgZZ3nrAvUD7rAug/kNFPpIM95M0 pdfQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5303rto3w+GVh53UpqWWi/sbZ4U/hrsZVShRYmmtvbQISZQsVxuC iwhINbEROcOg2eZKMyLEAHj5D1xH4vbIgtNdzkV5zJLu X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx8MzXC4YIbJ5c8TfUn5CEPNXnnTnp6vMt3PBlhIPlFr0/ixJ168QkAAAWX4xGgUWoz0inyl6kQR0AwLjlAEjw= X-Received: by 2002:a92:dccd:: with SMTP id b13mr3019070ilr.98.1591797403067; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 06:56:43 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202006092232.059MWWao074759@slippy.cwsent.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ed Maste Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:56:30 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Beta git conversion available for experimentation To: Warner Losh Cc: Cy Schubert , freebsd-git@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hpSX1hMTz41xX X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.180 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.84 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.01)[0.013]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.92)[-0.917]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.180:from]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.94)[-0.939]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.180:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 13:56:45 -0000 On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 18:48, Warner Losh wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 4:32 PM Cy Schubert wr= ote: >> >> Do we have any doc on managing contrib using the git model? > > We're working on our suggested best practices. We're making sure that th= e early testing we did to come up with the basics can be replicated easily = enough for it to be practical. > > There will be a doc going over all the following in detail, but here's th= e outline. > > git subtree allows one to merge in other repos into our main repo w/o use= rs of that repo needing to grab the merged in repos. We plan on making what= we call vendor branches today vendor repos. We'd then do a git subtree mer= ge from that repo as it tracks upstream. Also, I described my first experiments with git subtree earlier: https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-git/2020-January/000221.html From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 14:28:24 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C3D1335687 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:28:24 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f42.google.com (mail-io1-f42.google.com [209.85.166.42]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hq935gG9z447y; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:28:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f42.google.com with SMTP id r2so2412745ioo.4; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:28:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=EHfiVdYajX26rItiYYqjQKpId1d4yuVf4FImjyv5s0w=; b=pX6NhG4plDGwJkN9nEuJbtpQG0ippXG0uBDLNVNeM2zgYbsWfU7bPuzs1GV7h6/JkC GWHEcge6joAeL9UxOGZazobWAG7L05w1KlZLZ9bJx5ZOsVZlUd25a6lSAJ6iYqRBRiEi qBaBBQBdSL9kQaeYl6cZ4sg6YxFSS+OmDG401c6ZKEruxEleZ+8ezmVFshFbU4/yL7Kd qACmVwYSt3NSL4KcGZP3W0anYjFQdmGTDOJfve//WCIr4APudp4/tWIj6lXFbGCV/CNX QljCJuAjS1DKAY8rTT3Itv5DLezi4owKRBcRPzjwfvwtDGtDaoL0iwmn5zrsHySKRV7p YWCg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531UdeHxbP7O1E5PgbPWfVfPcgHH6FCFCL2B/+vX+VLdYqSIWluF uRgNeNl21ITV8U3PGsEd0GGBfAlOmi8b0nsvw4wxhw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwqXTvGjTIYQdHkmT7VAxxAEIIkjS0tZVxtIBuhY0i8OX9PNfmgim7fCMKfZl4kEn+8Bn52sShkA4DUfAEsoOI= X-Received: by 2002:a02:952f:: with SMTP id y44mr3415379jah.128.1591799302282; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 07:28:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ed Maste Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:28:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: Warner Losh Cc: Scott Long , Peter Wemm , Scott Long , freebsd-git@freebsd.org, kensmith@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hq935gG9z447y X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.62)[-0.617]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.74)[-0.741]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.15)[-0.147]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.42:from]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.42:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 14:28:24 -0000 On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 22:41, Warner Losh wrote: > > We're on the same page here. We've grabbed the relatively easy 95%. If it's > easy to include, we're doing it. If it requires heroics, we're leaving it > aside. The mainline conversion is done, and Ulrich is just making sure... The effort we're spending now (iterating on the svn-git conversion) is to make sure the conversion will support / simplify future contrib/ software updates, and I believe that attempting to truncate the repo will in fact make that process harder. We're very much not aiming for perfection, and have already determined how additional history can be grafted in later and on a per-clone basis, should someone want "git blame" to show CSRG-era commits, for example. We could perhaps skip converting branches before stable/10, although it doesn't buy us too much - uqs@ is not spending much time. From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 16:10:30 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F6C338B68 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-io1-f45.google.com (mail-io1-f45.google.com [209.85.166.45]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hsQt0LHfz4Chm for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-io1-f45.google.com with SMTP id o5so2815683iow.8 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:10:29 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=vD+nFDfe9rAUdgerw6hN7LeYQQYAm+ZI7vXcbeZmd2c=; b=Z5zxpfJLejHPffIM3A9SMF69NMaDDKKBKj7P9HqcTK4jmgz/HuZVlHTJvyXZJDIkmw g4/DWNdrDMA2hTlZsbPOv049iblu62dWOoN9gKAggDBP7AnwiNL0+exrQwaNvVHMDuMY MLdfn48ECz2c6g6i5c3jJFKRsp3YEOSHmSVogumaUeKH8NGHiBbkQBf23q02L2GapTU6 kniEtCXg6NI2c+4LCt4UvYPksOB/Hga51ptzC8ybA7aWLqrAMZ0rmlI2/mxw4roBgT/0 uMUmaAG9Egy+h+Ke7qDRkEpyvo4twnkbmA5l+Uz7OpwtFpyHmh+mKZwa/lMA42/+Zd0i nCdA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533hT2JpY+kUXi9B1Ud/6PzoPB18cdxyFwXyuk9IIumkfoqfOPbP ho4UN4bS1MPpEsPmyja6qnZ3ZmJl6tOHKs2BtgIo+6YT X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzZwNP1RH45/R9QIm7jNx+B1rG3RAyaBvMfJXSAun6FtWzepFMaefp6NGd3+xSy0OfTmjW01pgS4OckqlUCGMQ= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:25d3:: with SMTP id d19mr4082376iop.15.1591805428219; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Ed Maste Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:10:16 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Migrating merge based project from legacy git tree To: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hsQt0LHfz4Chm X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.39 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.17)[0.170]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.26)[-0.264]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.48)[0.480]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.45:from]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.45:from]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; TO_DOM_EQ_FROM_DOM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:10:31 -0000 Downstream FreeBSD projects will often use a merge based approach for staying up-to-date with new FreeBSD changes. That is, local work is committed to their fork, and FreeBSD updates arrive via something like "git merge upstream/master". These continue, resulting in a history of mixed local work and upstream merges. With FreeBSD's transition to a Git repository the Git hashes will change from the current GitHub mirror, in order to correct some issues with the existing svn2git conversion that would otherwise cause grief (in particular, related to contrib/ code management/updates). One of the deliverables from the Git Working Group is a documented process for migrating a downstream fork from "old" to "new" hashes. Gleb has documented that process at https://github.com/freebsd/git_conv/wiki/Migrating-merge-based-project-from-legacy-git-tree. I would appreciate it if merged-based downstream FreeBSD consumers can give this a try, and provide feedback. Note that the hashes in the beta repository will change at least once before it is finalized, so try this on an experimental basis for now. This document will move to a permanent home later in the transition process. From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 16:22:46 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60FC5338BB7 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:22:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (static-24-113-41-81.wavecable.com [24.113.41.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "ultimatedns.net", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hsj16jnmz4DGM; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:22:45 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) Received: from udns.ultimatedns.net (localhost [IPv6:0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1]) by udns.ultimatedns.net (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id 05AGN2Jf067992 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:23:08 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bsd-lists@BSDforge.com) X-Mailer: Cypht MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: In-Reply-To: From: Chris Reply-To: bsd-lists@BSDforge.com To: Ed Maste Subject: Re: Migrating merge based project from legacy git tree Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 09:23:08 -0700 Message-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hsj16jnmz4DGM X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 15.00]; ASN(0.00)[asn:11404, ipnet:24.113.0.0/16, country:US]; local_wl_ip(0.00)[24.113.41.81] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 16:22:46 -0000 On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:10:16 -0400 Ed Maste emaste@freebsd=2Eorg said > Downstream FreeBSD projects will often use a merge based approach for > staying up-to-date with new FreeBSD changes=2E That is, local work is > committed to their fork, and FreeBSD updates arrive via something like > "git merge upstream/master"=2E These continue, resulting in a history of > mixed local work and upstream merges=2E >=20 > With FreeBSD's transition to a Git repository the Git hashes will > change from the current GitHub mirror, in order to correct some issues > with the existing svn2git conversion that would otherwise cause grief > (in particular, related to contrib/ code management/updates)=2E One of > the deliverables from the Git Working Group is a documented process > for migrating a downstream fork from "old" to "new" hashes=2E >=20 > Gleb has documented that process at > https://github=2Ecom/freebsd/git_conv/wiki/Migrating-merge-based-project-fr= om-legacy-git-tree=2E The link above has a period on the end, which sends the user to the wiki in= dex=2E Here's the link without that period :-) https://github=2Ecom/freebsd/git_conv/wiki/Migrating-merge-based-project-from= -legacy-git-tree Thanks! :-) > I would appreciate it if merged-based downstream FreeBSD consumers can > give this a try, and provide feedback=2E Note that the hashes in the > beta repository will change at least once before it is finalized, so > try this on an experimental basis for now=2E >=20 > This document will move to a permanent home later in the transition proce= ss=2E --Chris From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 17:39:31 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 080F333AAA3 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:39:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hvPY6q5Kz4JsM for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:39:29 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wlosh@bsdimp.com) Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id e20so1428823qvu.0 for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:39:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TTMwYjVOu83QEbwTPSmh5YfNZ6WKIVd3EZHs7C3ao88=; b=s31IUiuLgxq91E4IVor3xM4CSPDMaF1QFbqEiz8mT3Gk/M3+LWzku8R6x808sb8Z/O brYAXk8pI5tOCWcREmPmmWKhiqNo5kdUwDc0VRbM1Fz+/sFPMXuL9vaoj1EPdS9I7UlW B1yOrK+7KAXZpmBhhoV/EOYrJ4TyE0vICO8gjORPYnDe5bA5xmeX/VC6ZJBt4W9bD/HQ sW5DupFZymgSh1Vea8JOMRoqd2k4ItYqF3il5B4hd3D7lNVEV9zecln0PcL4uNmT0l5B y0c+3Hyd+v9J26FY0Iy5k0omdFkfpxq8mRKCfqVrTCq4lglJfN1Q/uJi+RPpxkfLRIVT cUSQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TTMwYjVOu83QEbwTPSmh5YfNZ6WKIVd3EZHs7C3ao88=; b=UthirnNRwFQjRhPC9AnxCxA0s5QSqZyo7tIswVGidjwScW3ixIuSa6s37adqNdNFZx 7vju3zoGJqX0TGOTdOGYrtg61EziJr4eWys4JdMqdC9SdgMWA7Y/fmMttOR7XIl4SDkh LlUgo/KP04UPvP8L916LnWrIJSONSrFxB5v0zWyRuiqY/FpHio1jZDVafmtns6vATzeD joxkmuw7QnewXpz8+o4uLsdcADfzI8/n5fQmInzHSMhg5Dy3PT1zQ+8O0nEG1RTUcw65 y3EW7PlXFP9E5pF4DZ/xsfdhd4ivnwFf6nl3NJAY2jc4SVpr1fDnOUYXbRhvPVefByA3 8PPg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5306VeaMrgpWsPmeZXLrggK23bDuNmhWMX82k7SL2SFQ3zI4PaXx 2V9Jbj9+A4K2Hf6jIx+G0FpvMc0IysReRQS3H47TDg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx7ZdPsDwX8H87Zhce868MMKJXCm72yBPoHai3480bOF/zvrPqpjh6J/ylNRaNpNzARFsQZOO4LxFyC40m8Gpw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6214:17cb:: with SMTP id cu11mr4190532qvb.202.1591810768397; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 10:39:28 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Warner Losh Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 11:39:17 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: Ed Maste Cc: Scott Long , Peter Wemm , Scott Long , freebsd-git@freebsd.org, kensmith@freebsd.org X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hvPY6q5Kz4JsM X-Spamd-Bar: - Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=s31IUiuL; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of wlosh@bsdimp.com has no SPF policy when checking 2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36) smtp.mailfrom=wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-1.37 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.89)[-0.889]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.93)[-0.927]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[multipart/alternative,text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-git@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bsdimp.com]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[bsdimp-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.55)[-0.553]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36:from]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+,1:+,2:~]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2607:f8b0::/32, country:US]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[imp@bsdimp.com,wlosh@bsdimp.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.33 X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 17:39:31 -0000 On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 8:28 AM Ed Maste wrote: > On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 at 22:41, Warner Losh wrote: > > > > We're on the same page here. This characterization was wrong on my part... We have a genuine difference of opinion on the right way to get this done. Please accept my apologies for misunderstanding. I've reread Scott's emails after his private message to me, and I was wrong to characterize it this way. Warner From owner-freebsd-git@freebsd.org Wed Jun 10 19:44:18 2020 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-git@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40AB233D9FC for ; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:44:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: from mail-il1-f181.google.com (mail-il1-f181.google.com [209.85.166.181]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1O1" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49hy9Y3N4Tz4T6P; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:44:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from carpeddiem@gmail.com) Received: by mail-il1-f181.google.com with SMTP id a13so3170385ilh.3; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:44:17 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ho8j6PXVWQKZj88lxd35knM3rTfsutlbk7oMd3E/l48=; b=ordapummXGq2jqvuTV8tbCnPazcSdk3VJTomNyZ3p17WRl+5KlRo9Kx4Hf30y/qOGm oblHrWol2jrahCUmeReXEgfnPXija4o3aNz5bBjuTJBTfQ3X6ZN071UAFeZdet53KD15 pVbdXJIHpBMxOxnWVj5fhCJx/1uSo1rn/Qo5+qmwterb+bchF2pPi1SwvFpGhChPuXPY szjJKtzTikgu5UpAN50ppDwo3oKyjpXwN/pbJLwQVcTDo6qrKflwcFP4lij3ahE0sV8q z+0HgzL+7NVzCcv1xCgZqFN7oIJQFgHcbYHtO2jLCLJSu8De3AxG8glilSgwzL3sAWSo v+nQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531epLeW+5aDuA6vo/ms79DwuUYbfdj63uHk0xnRguXMOeE22bQW KFXQ5Ml94qtbbC76Mulaw4P121OaTsqq/gjuENTmMg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx1Vy330WbTIwiXk/Ws2ggCAYdQjHxVGyEfo3K/2nuYo2QDCXyKDGQLHaRQ6KllZjLmsWwxeQYtg4NnKP1dnU4= X-Received: by 2002:a92:5b86:: with SMTP id c6mr4743274ilg.100.1591818256449; Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:44:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Ed Maste Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 15:44:04 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: When were the stable and release branches actually created? To: Warner Losh Cc: Scott Long , Peter Wemm , Scott Long , freebsd-git@freebsd.org, kensmith@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49hy9Y3N4Tz4T6P X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of carpeddiem@gmail.com designates 209.85.166.181 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=carpeddiem@gmail.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.15 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; FREEMAIL_ENVFROM(0.00)[gmail.com]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:209.85.128.0/17:c]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-0.63)[-0.630]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[freebsd.org]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.78)[-0.782]; RCPT_COUNT_FIVE(0.00)[6]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.26)[0.259]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[209.85.166.181:from]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RWL_MAILSPIKE_POSSIBLE(0.00)[209.85.166.181:from]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:209.85.128.0/17, country:US]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[emaste@freebsd.org,carpeddiem@gmail.com]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2] X-BeenThere: freebsd-git@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.33 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of git use in the FreeBSD project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 19:44:18 -0000 On Wed, 10 Jun 2020 at 10:28, Ed Maste wrote: > > We could perhaps skip converting branches before stable/10, although > it doesn't buy us too much - uqs@ is not spending much time. I should clarify this - Uli is spending a lot of time and putting substantial effort into the conversion. What I mean here is that high fidelity conversion old branches is both a low priority and I believe a relatively small portion of the overall effort, and that dropping it won't make a material difference in when we're finished with the conversion, in light of the effort required to make sure that we're ready to deal with subtree / vendor updates in the git world.