Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 14:38:30 +0200 From: Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.org> To: Andrey Chernov <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: How to deal with deletes between imports (suggestion) Message-ID: <20040220123830.GC83714@ip.net.ua> In-Reply-To: <20040220115151.GA73898@nagual.pp.ru> References: <20040219174334.GA60017@nagual.pp.ru> <20040219180613.GC868@ip.net.ua> <20040219181102.GA60600@nagual.pp.ru> <20040219183701.GC1332@ip.net.ua> <20040220021348.GA66430@nagual.pp.ru> <20040220092633.GE28677@ip.net.ua> <20040220115151.GA73898@nagual.pp.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--XWOWbaMNXpFDWE00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For those still interested in this rather long thread... We've been actively discussing with Andrey the current matter of states (in Russian), and he asked about my opinion of what should we do in the current situation, should we revert the deltas to Xlist files, should we remove the files on vendor branches, if/when this should happen, etc. I suggested that we leave things as they are now (at least for Groff and Texinfo that I maintain where I'm quite happy), except for reverting the Xlist delta, but only for Groff. He wondered why we should behave different. I thought I'd (once again) share my thoughts on the subject. Amongst contributed things that I maintain, I can differentiate two basic approaches. With the first approach, the imports are done maximally cutted (Xlist is large), importing only those things that FreeBSD needs. After the next import, things that are no longer imported get removed on the vendor branch, by maintainers who care to do that. (I wish "cvs import" did this automatically.) With the second approach, the import is done minimally cutted (Xlist is kept minimal), importing almost everything, but unneeded stuff is still removed on the HEAD (FreeBSD) branch. There are good and bad sides with both approaches. The first approach is good because it saves space under /home/ncvs, especially for such large "space eaters" like GCC. The second approach is good because you can check out sources on the vendor branch, type ./configure, and build it the "vendor" way. It's beneficial in situations where you should periodically update config.h, etc., and is not easily possible with the first approach (of course there is still the possibility). In any case, my preferences for handling the vendor branch (except for obvious things like not committing local stuff there) can be summarized by this rule: - Checkout on the vendor branch (e.g, "cvs co -rFSF") should produce the same output as checkout of the last vendor release (e.g., "cvs co -rvX_Y"), with a few exceptions like partial upgrades (e.g., mdoc(7) for Groff) and partial hot security and bug fixes. Whenever possible, new imports should be done instead, even for anoncvs snapshots. =46rom this it follows that: - Unneeded files should either be not imported (and deleted on the vendor branch after _not_ importing), or should be deleted on the HEAD (FreeBSD) branch. Both approaches have their application. For example, I prefer the first approach for Groff (hence, I'd like to revert the Xlist delta), and the second approach for things like GNU grep and Texinfo (if I were doing the initial import of Texinfo I'd probably do it using the first approach though). Cheers, --=20 Ruslan Ermilov FreeBSD committer ru@FreeBSD.org --XWOWbaMNXpFDWE00 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFANf/GUkv4P6juNwoRAlDeAJ0YDNajRm2PnaFYnnBaqE6iFMNXwwCfRRpy EV2PFfdYelHHve7RPZdgsmA= =1m8E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --XWOWbaMNXpFDWE00--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040220123830.GC83714>