[DRE-maint] Removal of old tags / branches from SVN?

[Ryan Niebur]

Hi!

On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:42:13AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 29/07/09 at 01:31 -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:25:48AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > Our SVN repo has grown quite big (my checkout is >300M, and I don't
> > > really have a lot of additional files). I think it would make sense to
> > > remove old tags / branches from it, as well as packages that are no
> > > longer in Debian.
> > > 
> > 
> > why? I think this is a bad idea, it defeats the purpose of a tag. Why
> > don't we just switch to a sane svn layout that allows you to check out
> > the current version of all the packages ("trunk") without all of the
> > branches/tags?
> 
> I like the idea. Will you do it? :-)

of course. :)

so our (the perl group) layout is like this:
tags of uploads: svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-perl/tags/libany-moose-perl/0.07-1/
trunk: svn+ssh://svn.debian.org/svn/pkg-perl/trunk/libany-moose-perl

this is my first proposed change. we would probably also switch from
packages-wip to just a single trunk with this change. what's the
benefit of packages-wip anyway? It seems to just create more work
because you can't check that your Vcs-* fields are correct on the
first upload, and you have to do the extra "svn mv" and "svn switch".

we (the perl group) also keep upstream source in svn, which is a lot
more convenient because you don't need to extract the source manually
to add a quilt patch, for example. it doesn't add much size, and we
have a lot more packages than DRE. I'd like to propose we do this as
well, tho this is unrelated to my first proposed change.

I'd be willing to do the switchover, update the documentation, and
send an email explaining what people will need to change in their
current workflows for either of these changes.

So what do people think? please tell me which of the 3 changes you
think should happen (toplevel trunk/tags, single trunk instead of
packages-{,wip}, upstream source in svn). the first one would solve
the original reason for this thread, the other two would just make
things simpler on us (afaict).

Cheers,
Ryan

-- 
_________________________
Ryan Niebur
ryanryan52 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers/attachments/20090802/3aa92fd8/attachment.pgp>