Mail archive

Re: [alpine-devel] Why? ACF - million repos </sarcasm>

From: Jeremy Thomerson <>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 09:50:44 -0400

2011/3/31 Timo Teräs <>

> On 03/31/2011 04:14 PM, Ted Trask wrote:
> > 1) Having one ACF git repo would save me some work when updating multiple
> > packages / releases, but it would add some overhead too. I have a
> tendency to
> > have unfinished work (uncommitted) on some packages while working on
> others.
> > Since git has only one stash (right?), it would be more difficult for me
> to
> > maintain my tree.
> You can have several of them: man git-stash

Use git branches. When you start some chunk of work, "git checkout -b
mynewfeature master" creates mynewfeature branch from master. Work on that,
but don't merge that branch to master. Master can be the release-from

> > 2) Also, building would be difficult. What tag would abuild pull? Some
> packages
> > will have untagged (not for release) mods that are older than tagged (for
> > release) mods for other packages. Would abuild pull separate tags from
> the repo
> > for each package?
> Basically you would have single version number and single tag for the
> whole tree. You'd need to bump only that and it'd publish anything
> changed in the whole tree.
> The per-module versions would need to be in separate file, and be
> preferably automatically updated when you modified one of the files for
> it. E.g. by git-hook on commit, or on just before tagging.
> Alternatively, the submodule package version could be just the timestamp
> it was last modified.

Have abuild pull from master branch, or you can tag master branch with
release numbers. "Not for release" stuff is in a "development" branch
(similar to answer for #1) rather than master.

> > 3) We should avoid breaking the old builds for earlier versions of
> alpine. Leave
> > the old repos, but only use a new, merged repo? I'm a bit gunshy since
> the last
> > git updates broke all of the aports for packages hosted on git.a.o.
> >
> > So, I'm ok with moving to one git repo, but it sounds like quite a
> complication
> > for abuild. And, I'm not going to be the one that has to implement it.
> Yes, it'd be new feature of abuild. And probably needs some thought if
> it's to be done.
> This was just wish world I had. But obviously ncopa would have to do
> wacky stuff in abuild to make this work.


Received on Thu Mar 31 2011 - 09:50:44 UTC