Date: Tue, 6 May 2025 09:41:21 -0500 From: Kyle Evans <kevans@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-git@freebsd.org Subject: Re: got(1) in base consideration Message-ID: <7f04bd7a-9959-4b45-97af-008a8c58e21a@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <aBh9uuaPy8Vd9V38@kib.kiev.ua> References: <9f48a955-5f8a-450c-94c1-2a7d9d69ecb9@FreeBSD.org> <aBh9uuaPy8Vd9V38@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 5/5/25 03:58, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, May 04, 2025 at 08:50:46PM -0500, Kyle Evans wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I've been toying around with the idea of pulling got(1) into base, but >> hidden off into /usr/libexec and not supporting it for general usage. The >> idea would instead be to provide a script or two as a user-facing interface >> to do the bare minimum to functionally maintain a local copy of our git >> repos. >> >> However, I've run into some logistics issues that I wanted to throw out for >> some opinions. The main issue I've run into is that while got's repository >> layout is binary-compatible with git, it won't setup worktrees the same way. >> Additionally, it really doesn't like the traditional organization of a git >> clone, where you'd have your .git directory inside of your primary worktree >> (e.g., /usr/src and /usr/src/.git). >> >> I don't think this is really a deal-breaker, my proposal to start with would >> be that we clone the repositories off into /var/db/got/$repo or some such >> and setup the worktrees in the traditional place. git can `worktree add` >> from these repos successfully, so one could setup a git-compatible worktree >> at least without having to re-clone the entire repository, but that brings >> me to the second caveat noted in the paragraph above: the worktree format >> isn't compatible. >> >> We could write a script that'll bridge the gap, but AFAICT that means that >> we'd effectively have to just blow away the existing got worktree at >> /usr/src and recreate it, with sensible guardrails in place to try and avoid >> losing any uncommitted work. That's sort of ugly and I don't really know >> how to feel about it, thus this e-mail. >> >> Thoughts? > > What is the intended audience of the setup? > Who would not install normal git port but still want /usr/src populated? > For what purpose? Hi, I'm thinking less about src here and more about ports, where end-user/sysadmin may just want a simple mechanism to keep their ports tree updated (as a replacement for, e.g., portsnap). Thanks, Kyle Evns
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?7f04bd7a-9959-4b45-97af-008a8c58e21a>