Re: [PATCH] mk/git-package.mk (Re: migrate to git for emacs-current (24.0.50) ?

Makoto Fujiwara <[email protected]> writes:

>   You mentioned the robustness is the most important. I agree.
> git may include its integrity in their own mechanism, so it
> would be get managed I hope.

git definitely has its own integrity mechanism, based on chain sha1
hashes.  One can check a repo with git fsck.

>   First of all, I said 280MB for emacs-current for daily
> cache, it was WITHOUT --depth 1. With --depth 1, it is about
> 126MB.

OK.  Well, emacs is big, and that's just how it is.  The real question
is that if it takes 126 MB to store a copy of emacs sources, then
pkgsrc's git mode shouldn't somehow take vastly more (which I don't
think it will).

>  The second thing is that I am leaning to go with proposed
> policy, meaning that keep uncompressed tar archive of .git
> directory of daily bases. It is just like cvs-packge.mk.  If
> the disk space problem arises, just remove manually old
> generations.  (I have checked emacs-current with
> cvs-package.mk and it occupies about 30MB per day.)

I can certainly see the merit of that approach.  As for manual removal,
I use lintpkgsrc to remove unreferenced distfiles.  I don't understand
how lintpkgsrc and {cvs,svn,git}-package.mk interact, but it would be
nice if the result was that non-current snapshots would be removed.

>   We may have GIT_KEEP_GENERATIONS flag which if set, removes
> the daily archive generations exceeding that number.

We could, but so far pkgsrc doesn't have a general mechanism for this.
Old distfiles are not deleted.  I think it would be nice if we could
treat a saved git repository as a distfile.

>   I also notice that even this flags is set, archive may get
> fat by accumulating history on local copy of .git. I don't
> exactly not tell the impact of this for the time being.

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  I think if one continues
to do a 'git fetch' into a repo over time, then the storage requirements
will grow.  But I think it will grow relatively slowly.

The big choice is between

   clone
   tar up into pseudo distfile
 or
   untar previous version


and something which is much more git-aware and integrated.  I certainly
won't say that doing the straightforward thing is wrong - even though I
think a more git-centric approach would be nice.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for the Ultimate 
GeekDad Father's Day Giveaway. ONE MASSIVE PRIZE to the 
lucky parental unit.  See the prize list and enter to win: 
http://p.sf.net/sfu/thinkgeek-promo

_______________________________________________
pkgsrc-wip-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pkgsrc-wip-discuss

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (NetBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAkwQOxYACgkQ+vesoDJhHiXn9ACgpd/aGu9ReywFIs85PgOL+i/p
wbkAniqNax7ZiZvKBbCDTH21MgGUH7z7
=2QJB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----