[PySide] BuildScripts and archived repositories on GitHub
anatoly techtonik
versions tagged by BuildScripts.
Can anybody tell which revisions now correspond to the released 1.1.0
so that BuildScript can be updated?
Is it possible to upload old repositories somewhere for archival purposes?
(searching for hash numbers in Google)
--
anatoly t.
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
PyS...@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/pyside
Thomas Perl
2012/3/21 anatoly techtonik <tech...@gmail.com>:
> Is it possible to upload old repositories somewhere for archival purposes?
> (searching for hash numbers in Google)
Yes, I'd also like to have the old repositories available somehow. I
have a checkout from some weeks ago, so if nothing else comes up, I
could upload that somewhere (maybe something like
github.com/pyside-old-repositories-2012-03/[...] to make it clear that
these are the repositories that are considered "old" as of 2012-03).
It would be great if someone from the PySide Core Team could upload
these repos, though, because I'm not sure I have the latest revisions
from all the old repositories (or just tell me the revision numbers
and I'll check if I have the latest).
Thanks,
Thomas
Matti Airas
> Yes, I'd also like to have the old repositories available somehow. I
> have a checkout from some weeks ago, so if nothing else comes up, I
> could upload that somewhere (maybe something like
> github.com/pyside-old-repositories-2012-03/[...] to make it clear that
> these are the repositories that are considered "old" as of 2012-03).
>
> It would be great if someone from the PySide Core Team could upload
> these repos, though, because I'm not sure I have the latest revisions
> from all the old repositories (or just tell me the revision numbers
> and I'll check if I have the latest).
I don't really see any reason to delete the apiextractor and
generatorrunner repositories from Gerrit. In my opinion, they can well
reside there, and together with the Gitorious mirrors provide all the
archiving functionality you need. It's not really constructive to keep
muddling the project layout with unofficial GitHub repos because new
commits have to land in Gerrit to fulfill the contribution agreement
requirements. Hence, I'd also prefer if the build scripts would point to
the official repos - but that's of course up to you.
Cheers,
ma.
Thomas Perl
2012/3/21 Matti Airas <matti....@nokia.com>:
> On 21.03.2012 11:38, ext Thomas Perl wrote:
>> Yes, I'd also like to have the old repositories available somehow. I
>> have a checkout from some weeks ago, so if nothing else comes up, I
>> could upload that somewhere (maybe something like
>> github.com/pyside-old-repositories-2012-03/[...] to make it clear that
>> these are the repositories that are considered "old" as of 2012-03).
>>
>> It would be great if someone from the PySide Core Team could upload
>> these repos, though, because I'm not sure I have the latest revisions
>> from all the old repositories (or just tell me the revision numbers
>> and I'll check if I have the latest).
>
> I don't really see any reason to delete the apiextractor and
> generatorrunner repositories from Gerrit. In my opinion, they can well
> reside there, and together with the Gitorious mirrors provide all the
> archiving functionality you need. It's not really constructive to keep
> muddling the project layout with unofficial GitHub repos because new
> commits have to land in Gerrit to fulfill the contribution agreement
> requirements. Hence, I'd also prefer if the build scripts would point to
> the official repos - but that's of course up to you.
I'll definitely update the build scripts to use the new repositories
and the new structure and go forward with the new, simplified build
structure for PySide.
However, for some use cases in the next few months, it might still be
useful to be able to access the old pre-Qt Project repositories (with
the "offending" commits still included). One example might be to build
PySide Mobility (it seems like it is broken with the new structure,
have to investigate) until we get it fixed or to "replay" the PySide
on Android instructions with the old repos in case there are problems
with the new repository layout and the instructions. It might be
useful in debugging and finding errors (maybe there are regressions
from migrating apiextractor and generatorrunner into shiboken, not
that I would expect any). Of course, the old repos should be clearly
marked as such, and no new development should happen there. Disk space
is cheap/free, and keeping the original repositories around for a few
more months might prove to be useful, and should not hurt (if they are
clearly marked as old, deprecated and usually dangerous - both in the
URL and maybe with a "OLD-REPOSITORY-DO-NOT-USE.txt" file committed to
it containing a description where to get the latest version).
Thanks,
Thomas
Hugo Parente Lima
> New repositories have hash numbers reindexed and this breaks all
> versions tagged by BuildScripts.
> Can anybody tell which revisions now correspond to the released 1.1.0
> so that BuildScript can be updated?
Hi
The hashes were reindexed but the tags still there in the same commits, the
BuildScripts used hashes instead of tag names?
> Is it possible to upload old repositories somewhere for archival purposes?
> (searching for hash numbers in Google)
The old repositories with old hashes are on gitorious:
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/pyside-archive
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/shiboken-archive
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/apiextractor-archive
[]`s
--
Hugo Parente Lima
INdT - Instituto Nokia de Tecnologia
anatoly techtonik
<hugo...@openbossa.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday 21 March 2012 02:41:09 anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> New repositories have hash numbers reindexed and this breaks all
>> versions tagged by BuildScripts.
>> Can anybody tell which revisions now correspond to the released 1.1.0
>> so that BuildScript can be updated?
>
> BuildScripts used hashes instead of tag names?
BuildScripts uses git submodules, which refer to revisions, not to
tags. But the problem seems even more complex, because it could happen
that starting from revisions that was taken out all tagged builds are
broken.
>> Is it possible to upload old repositories somewhere for archival purposes?
>> (searching for hash numbers in Google)
>
> The old repositories with old hashes are on gitorious:
>
> http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/pyside-archive
> http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/shiboken-archive
> http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/apiextractor-archive
That's great. Can anybody filter BuildScripts clone to depend on these
canonical repositories for previous revisions, and reupload it so that
we could have a working bisect there?
In the meanwhile I've created a pull request at
https://github.com/PySide/BuildScripts/pull/5 to fix BuildScrips so
that people can compile current HEAD for testing.
anatoly techtonik
> On 21.03.2012 11:38, ext Thomas Perl wrote:
>> Yes, I'd also like to have the old repositories available somehow. I
>> have a checkout from some weeks ago, so if nothing else comes up, I
>> could upload that somewhere (maybe something like
>> github.com/pyside-old-repositories-2012-03/[...] to make it clear that
>> these are the repositories that are considered "old" as of 2012-03).
>>
>> It would be great if someone from the PySide Core Team could upload
>> these repos, though, because I'm not sure I have the latest revisions
>> from all the old repositories (or just tell me the revision numbers
>> and I'll check if I have the latest).
>
> I don't really see any reason to delete the apiextractor and
> generatorrunner repositories from Gerrit. In my opinion, they can well
> reside there, and together with the Gitorious mirrors provide all the
> archiving functionality you need.
With
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/apiextractor-archive
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/generatorrunner-archive
the Gerrit mirrors don't make any sense. No commits will be submitted
for those, but it will confuse people who will inevitably ask about
their role.
To make it even more transparent for new people, I would alter the
description for
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/apiextractor-archive
http://qt.gitorious.org/pyside/generatorrunner-archive
to include the sentence:
"This project was merged into Shiboken around the time PySide migrated
to Qt Project."
> It's not really constructive to keep
> muddling the project layout with unofficial GitHub repos because new
> commits have to land in Gerrit to fulfill the contribution agreement
> requirements. Hence, I'd also prefer if the build scripts would point to
> the official repos - but that's of course up to you.
It is more to Thomas, but IIRC the GitHub proved to have a much better
uptime history, so until Gerrit is open to public, I'd rather not
point everything to Gitorious, because it is painful for people who
study source from browser. GitHub descriptions could be modified to
point to patch submission guide so that people avoid submitting pull
requests for the mirrors.
--
anatoly t.