Personal git repositories

Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.

As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
without having to involve the system admin with each event.

kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
think it could do the same for us.

Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
environment and if this idea would address that gap.

Thoughts?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-04-26 11:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>
> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>
> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
> think it could do the same for us.
>
> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>
> Thoughts?

Only a 2nd vote for something like this. I've had a need for
this on several occasions, and often I'd like to get something out, and
then slot it into a more "official" location later. My current
location for the 2.6.39-yocto kernel on my kernel.org account sort
of says it all :)

Cheers,

Bruce

>

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/26/2011 08:22 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-04-26 11:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>
>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>
>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>> think it could do the same for us.
>>
>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Only a 2nd vote for something like this. I've had a need for
> this on several occasions, and often I'd like to get something out, and
> then slot it into a more "official" location later. My current
> location for the 2.6.39-yocto kernel on my kernel.org account sort
> of says it all :)

Right. I just pushed meta-boottime to my kernel.org account as well. I'd
much rather have that be:

git://git.yoctoproject.org/dvhart/meta-boottime.git


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Saul Wold]

On 04/26/2011 08:57 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 04/26/2011 08:22 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-04-26 11:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>>
>>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>>
>>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>>> think it could do the same for us.
>>>
>>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Only a 2nd vote for something like this. I've had a need for
>> this on several occasions, and often I'd like to get something out, and
>> then slot it into a more "official" location later. My current
>> location for the 2.6.39-yocto kernel on my kernel.org account sort
>> of says it all :)
>
> Right. I just pushed meta-boottime to my kernel.org account as well. I'd
> much rather have that be:
>
> git://git.yoctoproject.org/dvhart/meta-boottime.git
>
>
I also think this is a good idea, but can we wait until we get things 
transitioned to the new server and stabilized before adding new things 
right now?

Sau!

Re: Personal git repositories

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:00 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
> 
> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
> 
> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
> think it could do the same for us.
> 
> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 

My thinking (I guess - I didn't really think that much about it at the
time) when requesting the meta-intel-contrib repo was that repos that
could expect to get continual contributions from many people would
benefit from having a corresponding -contrib version - so far that's
poky-contrib, linux-yocto-*.contrib, and openembedded-core-contrib.  To
me bsp repos fit the same criteria, but I'm not the one who has to
manage it all, so I understand the desire to avoid the proliferation.

Seems like the personal repos idea would mitigate the problem...

Tom

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/26/2011 09:39 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:00 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>
>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>
>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>> think it could do the same for us.
>>
>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
> 
> My thinking (I guess - I didn't really think that much about it at the
> time) when requesting the meta-intel-contrib repo was that repos that
> could expect to get continual contributions from many people would
> benefit from having a corresponding -contrib version - so far that's
> poky-contrib, linux-yocto-*.contrib, and openembedded-core-contrib.  To
> me bsp repos fit the same criteria, but I'm not the one who has to
> manage it all, so I understand the desire to avoid the proliferation.
> 
> Seems like the personal repos idea would mitigate the problem...
> 

I think these are two distinct but overlapping problems:

1) place to share on the common core (poky, linux-yocto*)
2) place to share new stuff that may not amount to anything

For #1, the *-contrib git repositories make sense to me. It provides a
single repository that a lot of people use and reduces the git remote
management for everyone. They are therefor worth the added complexity
they add to the yoctoproject git namespace and on the system administrator.

For #2, people need to be able to prepare a tree and poke someone in IRC
with a git URL to try out. Many of these are likely to be short lived,
and to only have a single contributor. As such, they are not worth
polluting the yoctoproject git namespace, nor should we burden our
system admin with setting them up and tearing them down. Indeed, they
are likely to linger, continuing to pollute the namespace long after
they are dead trees simply due to the overhead of removing them!

As for BSP's... these don't seem to have a lot of contributors - at
least from what I have seen. Typically 1 or 2 people. For that scenario,
I see two processes as options:

a) add user branches:
  master
  bernard
  dvhart/topicA
  dvhart/topicB
  tzanussi/topicA
  tzanussi/topicD

b) use the personal repositories described in #2 above

While it is possible to use poky-contrib for things like this, I think
it is non-intuitive to use a repository as a remote to a repository that
isn't based off the remote repository (like BSP layers which aren't part
of poky). For most users, this will result in pulling down MBs of
unnecessary git objects. Yes, you can use --reference when cloning. Yes,
you can use fancy fetch commands. No, nobody will.

Thanks,

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/26/2011 09:37 PM, Saul Wold wrote:
> On 04/26/2011 08:57 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 04/26/2011 08:22 PM, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>>> On 11-04-26 11:00 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>>>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>>>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>>>
>>>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>>>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>>>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>>>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>>>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>>>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>>>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>>>
>>>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>>>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>>>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>>>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>>>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>>>> think it could do the same for us.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>>>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>>>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>>>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> Only a 2nd vote for something like this. I've had a need for
>>> this on several occasions, and often I'd like to get something out, and
>>> then slot it into a more "official" location later. My current
>>> location for the 2.6.39-yocto kernel on my kernel.org account sort
>>> of says it all :)
>>
>> Right. I just pushed meta-boottime to my kernel.org account as well. I'd
>> much rather have that be:
>>
>> git://git.yoctoproject.org/dvhart/meta-boottime.git
>>
>>
> I also think this is a good idea, but can we wait until we get things 
> transitioned to the new server and stabilized before adding new things 
> right now?

I believe so. Bruce and I can use kernel.org for now. Tom and I can use
personal branches in meta-intel. But I'd like to see a solution here
before we see widespread use of kernel.org and github to manage git
trees as it will be collectively a lot more work to move people to the
new infrastructure - and we'll lose some mindshare in the meantime.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Tom Zanussi]

On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 21:53 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
> On 04/26/2011 09:39 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:00 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
> >> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
> >> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
> >>
> >> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
> >> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
> >> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
> >> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
> >> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
> >> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
> >> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
> >>
> >> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
> >> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
> >> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
> >> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
> >> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
> >> think it could do the same for us.
> >>
> >> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
> >> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
> >> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
> >> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
> >>
> >> Thoughts?
> >>
> > 
> > My thinking (I guess - I didn't really think that much about it at the
> > time) when requesting the meta-intel-contrib repo was that repos that
> > could expect to get continual contributions from many people would
> > benefit from having a corresponding -contrib version - so far that's
> > poky-contrib, linux-yocto-*.contrib, and openembedded-core-contrib.  To
> > me bsp repos fit the same criteria, but I'm not the one who has to
> > manage it all, so I understand the desire to avoid the proliferation.
> > 
> > Seems like the personal repos idea would mitigate the problem...
> > 
> 
> I think these are two distinct but overlapping problems:
> 
> 1) place to share on the common core (poky, linux-yocto*)
> 2) place to share new stuff that may not amount to anything
> 
> For #1, the *-contrib git repositories make sense to me. It provides a
> single repository that a lot of people use and reduces the git remote
> management for everyone. They are therefor worth the added complexity
> they add to the yoctoproject git namespace and on the system administrator.
> 
> For #2, people need to be able to prepare a tree and poke someone in IRC
> with a git URL to try out. Many of these are likely to be short lived,
> and to only have a single contributor. As such, they are not worth
> polluting the yoctoproject git namespace, nor should we burden our
> system admin with setting them up and tearing them down. Indeed, they
> are likely to linger, continuing to pollute the namespace long after
> they are dead trees simply due to the overhead of removing them!
> 
> As for BSP's... these don't seem to have a lot of contributors - at
> least from what I have seen. Typically 1 or 2 people. For that scenario,
> I see two processes as options:
> 
> a) add user branches:
>   master
>   bernard
>   dvhart/topicA
>   dvhart/topicB
>   tzanussi/topicA
>   tzanussi/topicD
> 

Yeah, that's what you and I do already.  But we now have people coming
online who will be be continually pushing changes to their bsps in
meta-intel and we don't necessarily want to give them write access to
meta-intel itself right away, I assume...

> b) use the personal repositories described in #2 above
> 

Yeah, so we could create and manage meta-intel-contrib ourselves without
bothering any admins...

Tom

> While it is possible to use poky-contrib for things like this, I think
> it is non-intuitive to use a repository as a remote to a repository that
> isn't based off the remote repository (like BSP layers which aren't part
> of poky). For most users, this will result in pulling down MBs of
> unnecessary git objects. Yes, you can use --reference when cloning. Yes,
> you can use fancy fetch commands. No, nobody will.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/26/2011 10:05 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 21:53 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> On 04/26/2011 09:39 PM, Tom Zanussi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2011-04-26 at 20:00 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>>>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>>>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>>>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>>>
>>>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>>>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>>>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>>>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>>>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>>>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>>>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>>>
>>>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>>>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>>>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>>>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>>>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>>>> think it could do the same for us.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>>>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>>>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>>>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My thinking (I guess - I didn't really think that much about it at the
>>> time) when requesting the meta-intel-contrib repo was that repos that
>>> could expect to get continual contributions from many people would
>>> benefit from having a corresponding -contrib version - so far that's
>>> poky-contrib, linux-yocto-*.contrib, and openembedded-core-contrib.  To
>>> me bsp repos fit the same criteria, but I'm not the one who has to
>>> manage it all, so I understand the desire to avoid the proliferation.
>>>
>>> Seems like the personal repos idea would mitigate the problem...
>>>
>>
>> I think these are two distinct but overlapping problems:
>>
>> 1) place to share on the common core (poky, linux-yocto*)
>> 2) place to share new stuff that may not amount to anything
>>
>> For #1, the *-contrib git repositories make sense to me. It provides a
>> single repository that a lot of people use and reduces the git remote
>> management for everyone. They are therefor worth the added complexity
>> they add to the yoctoproject git namespace and on the system administrator.
>>
>> For #2, people need to be able to prepare a tree and poke someone in IRC
>> with a git URL to try out. Many of these are likely to be short lived,
>> and to only have a single contributor. As such, they are not worth
>> polluting the yoctoproject git namespace, nor should we burden our
>> system admin with setting them up and tearing them down. Indeed, they
>> are likely to linger, continuing to pollute the namespace long after
>> they are dead trees simply due to the overhead of removing them!
>>
>> As for BSP's... these don't seem to have a lot of contributors - at
>> least from what I have seen. Typically 1 or 2 people. For that scenario,
>> I see two processes as options:
>>
>> a) add user branches:
>>   master
>>   bernard
>>   dvhart/topicA
>>   dvhart/topicB
>>   tzanussi/topicA
>>   tzanussi/topicD
>>
> 
> Yeah, that's what you and I do already.  But we now have people coming
> online who will be be continually pushing changes to their bsps in
> meta-intel and we don't necessarily want to give them write access to
> meta-intel itself right away, I assume...
> 
>> b) use the personal repositories described in #2 above
>>
> 
> Yeah, so we could create and manage meta-intel-contrib ourselves without
> bothering any admins...

Well, sort of. The personal trees would be writable only by their owner.
Otherwise you would have to manage all the user authentication. I forgot
about the new meta-intel contributors.

I would suggest we start with a pull model to get things upstream. As
they gain confidence in contributing, we can look at something where
they have more control of a repository, probably still will need a
meta-intel-contrib in this case.

--
Darren

> 
> Tom
> 
>> While it is possible to use poky-contrib for things like this, I think
>> it is non-intuitive to use a repository as a remote to a repository that
>> isn't based off the remote repository (like BSP layers which aren't part
>> of poky). For most users, this will result in pulling down MBs of
>> unnecessary git objects. Yes, you can use --reference when cloning. Yes,
>> you can use fancy fetch commands. No, nobody will.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Koen Kooi]

Op 27 apr 2011, om 05:00 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:

> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
> 
> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
> 
> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
> think it could do the same for us.
> 
> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
> environment and if this idea would address that gap.


Have you though about setting up a gitorious instance on git.yocto? 

Regards,

Koen

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/27/2011 12:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
> 
> Op 27 apr 2011, om 05:00 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>
>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>
>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>> think it could do the same for us.
>>
>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
> 
> 
> Have you though about setting up a gitorious instance on git.yocto? 

I think that is a fantastic idea, it gets my vote.

gitorious++


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Elizabeth Flanagan]

A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.

As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole 
bunch of -contrib repos. However, maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:

Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it 
from his local repo:

git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
git checkout foo

The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what 
you would do with "git remote update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid having to 
swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just one of those "git being a pain to learn"

-b

On 04/27/2011 07:45 AM, Darren Hart wrote:
>
>
> On 04/27/2011 12:56 AM, Koen Kooi wrote:
>>
>> Op 27 apr 2011, om 05:00 heeft Darren Hart het volgende geschreven:
>>
>>> git.yoctoproject.org hosts a number of different repositories, some of
>>> which host limited user contributions (such as poky-contrib). These
>>> repositories are setup and administered by a yoctoproject.org system admin.
>>>
>>> As our developer base grows, the need for user creatable git trees also
>>> grows. Eventually, *-contrib isn't going to scale, and neither will the
>>> system admin. There are plenty of available places individuals can
>>> create publicly accessible trees (github, kernel.org, or any number of
>>> similar sites). However, I think it would be beneficial for at least
>>> very active developers to be able to create and destroy trees on a whim,
>>> without having to involve the system admin with each event.
>>>
>>> kernel.org provides a git web interface for user created trees. I'd like
>>> to see something similar available at yoctoproject.org in order to
>>> establish single place to go looking for "yocto developer trees". Users
>>> would have to justify their request for a user account and agree to a
>>> terms of use. This has served the Linux kernel community very well. I
>>> think it could do the same for us.
>>>
>>> Note: I am not offering to setup such a service or even say that it's
>>> possible with the current resources. I just wanted to throw the idea out
>>> there and see if others have found a similar gap in the development
>>> environment and if this idea would address that gap.
>>
>>
>> Have you though about setting up a gitorious instance on git.yocto?
>
> I think that is a fantastic idea, it gets my vote.
>
> gitorious++
>
>

-- 
---------------
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Release Engineer

Re: Personal git repositories

[Joshua Lock]

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
> 
> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole 
> bunch of -contrib repos. However, maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:

I don't agree. I have a few sparse layers and some other code that I am
not sharing because they need repositories *somewhere*.

Having said that some of these recipes may be useful to others yet
definitely don't belong in oe-core. What do I do with them? The
mechanism Darren describes seems like it would work for my use case.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
        Yocto Build System Monkey
        Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Personal git repositories

[Elizabeth Flanagan]

On 04/27/2011 11:14 AM, Joshua Lock wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
>> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
>>
>> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole
>> bunch of -contrib repos. However, maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
>
> I don't agree. I have a few sparse layers and some other code that I am
> not sharing because they need repositories *somewhere*.

Different use case from what I'm seeing as the general concern, however, I would say that if someone has code that 
doesn't belong in oe-core but it's standalone and useful to the project, then you would put in a request to have a new 
repo added. And maybe that's a good argument for new infrastructure if the current process doesn't scale well (which I 
don't have data that would come to any conclusion like that).

> Having said that some of these recipes may be useful to others yet
> definitely don't belong in oe-core. What do I do with them? The
> mechanism Darren describes seems like it would work for my use case.

Ask me to create a repo. If I was getting a flood of repo creation requests or there was a use case that was compelling, 
I'd be on board with this in a heartbeat, but to me, it just seems like it's better served by people understanding the 
process better.

The current process is to send me an email (ccing RP), saying what repo you want, why you need it and then we go from 
there and create it, if it makes sense. I think I'm specifically worried less about your use case (I get *maybe* a repo 
request a month) than I am about people justifying an infrastructure change in order to have a whole bunch of contrib 
repos. That is better served by sparse fetches of needed branches from poky-contrib.


---------------
Elizabeth Flanagan
Yocto Project
Release Engineer

Re: Personal git repositories

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
> 
> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole 
> bunch of -contrib repos. However, maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
> 
> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it 
> from his local repo:
> 
> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
> git checkout foo
> 
> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what 
> you would do with "git remote update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid having to 
> swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just one of those "git being a pain to learn"

Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
<keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
the commands. 

This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
specific anyway.

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
>> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
>>
>> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to
>> avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However,
>> maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
>>
>> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
>> poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:

I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this,
fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
users.

>> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
>> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
>> git checkout foo

My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git
without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me
it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and
check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects.


I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in
the same repository.

>>
>> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
>> download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote
>> update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid
>> having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just
>> one of those "git being a pain to learn"
> 
> Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
> setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
> <keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
> their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
> possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
> the commands. 
> 
> This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
> often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
> but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
> sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
> As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
> it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
> specific anyway.


I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
layers. And they will end up naming them something like:

yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
yocto-contrib-layer-2.git

And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like
a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories.
Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try
and make this work.

Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
>>> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
>>>
>>> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to
>>> avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However,
>>> maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
>>>
>>> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
>>> poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:
>
> I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
> willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
> fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this,
> fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
> users.
>
>>> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
>>> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
>>> git checkout foo
>
> My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git
> without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me
> it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and
> check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects.
>
>
> I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in
> the same repository.
>
>>>
>>> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
>>> download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote
>>> update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid
>>> having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just
>>> one of those "git being a pain to learn"
>>
>> Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
>> setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
>> <keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
>> their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
>> possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
>> the commands.
>>
>> This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
>> often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
>> but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
>> sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
>> As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
>> it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
>> specific anyway.
>
>
> I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
> git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
> branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
> to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
> layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
>
> yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
> yocto-contrib-layer-2.git

This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
the other seemed clunky.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)

Cheers,

Bruce

>
> And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like
> a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories.
> Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try
> and make this work.
>
> Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?
>

Re: Personal git repositories

[Xianghua Xiao]

most if not all meego repo is on gitorious, why can't Yocto leverage
it, at least for now while everything is changing fast?

Xianghua

On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Bruce Ashfield
<bruce.ashfield@windriver.com> wrote:
> On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>
>> On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
>>>>
>>>> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like
>>>> to
>>>> avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos.
>>>> However,
>>>> maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this
>>>> issue:
>>>>
>>>> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
>>>> poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local
>>>> repo:
>>
>> I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
>> willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
>> fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with
>> this,
>> fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
>> users.
>>
>>>> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
>>>> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
>>>> git checkout foo
>>
>> My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within
>> git
>> without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to
>> tell me
>> it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web
>> browser and
>> check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the
>> objects.
>>
>>
>> I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees
>> in
>> the same repository.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
>>>> download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git
>>>> remote
>>>> update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to
>>>> avoid
>>>> having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is
>>>> just
>>>> one of those "git being a pain to learn"
>>>
>>> Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
>>> setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
>>> <keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
>>> their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
>>> possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
>>> the commands.
>>>
>>> This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
>>> often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
>>> but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
>>> sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
>>> As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
>>> it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
>>> specific anyway.
>>
>>
>> I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a
>> single
>> git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its
>> own
>> branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user
>> then has
>> to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their
>> two
>> layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
>>
>> yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
>> yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
>
> This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
> a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
> have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
> the other seemed clunky.
>
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
> yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
> source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bruce
>
>>
>> And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems
>> like
>> a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git
>> repositories.
>> Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather
>> than try
>> and make this work.
>>
>> Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
>

Re: Personal git repositories

[Richard Purdie]

On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
> On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> > I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
> > git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
> > branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
> > to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
> > layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
> >
> > yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
> > yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
> 
> This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
> a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
> have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
> the other seemed clunky.
> 
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
> yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
> source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)

I think there are three elements to this:

a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and 
   find it easiest to think in those terms.
b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as 
   the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple 
   projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn 
   repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in 
   the minority.
c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to 
   single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its 
   authors do.

Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
to use git in this way.

Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways
we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?

Cheers,

Richard

Re: Personal git repositories

[Bruce Ashfield]

On 11-04-28 04:28 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
>>> git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
>>> branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
>>> to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
>>> layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
>>>
>>> yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
>>> yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
>>
>> This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
>> a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
>> have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
>> the other seemed clunky.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
>> yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
>> source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)
>
> I think there are three elements to this:
>
> a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and
>     find it easiest to think in those terms.
> b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as
>     the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple
>     projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn
>     repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in
>     the minority.
> c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to
>     single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its
>     authors do.

Agreed with the points above. git really is just wrangling a bunch
of objects into commit chains and a branch points to a starting
point. So I completely agree that all chains don't have to lead to
the same origin, like you said, it is just how people tend to think.

>
> Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
> to use git in this way.
>
> Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
> git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
> that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways

I think we are likely ok, people have solutions that work, getting
the right contrib repos setup with appropriate permissions to setup
branches will go a long way.

As long as things stay responsive, I'd imagine that we'll find
that people will be happy with things as they are. At least we've
considered the options before it is critical.

Cheers,

Bruce

> we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard
>
>
>

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/28/2011 01:28 AM, Richard Purdie wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 20:59 -0400, Bruce Ashfield wrote:
>> On 11-04-27 6:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
>>> I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
>>> git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
>>> branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
>>> to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
>>> layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
>>>
>>> yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
>>> yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
>>
>> This is what I was wondering as well. I had my meta-kernel-dev as
>> a branch on poky-extras and ran into exactly this problem. Either
>> have two clones, or get it into master. Master was the choice, since
>> the other seemed clunky.
>>
>> Maybe I'm misunderstanding as well, but sparse fetch or not (and
>> yes I've done/used it), logically I like things that are distinct
>> source trees to be separate repos. Maybe it's a kernel-guy thing ? :)
> 
> I think there are three elements to this:
> 
> a) People do like the logical separation that a repo gives them and 
>    find it easiest to think in those terms.
> b) Most people are used to single relatively monolithic repos such as 
>    the kernel. People like myself who have used svn with multiple 
>    projects contained within like matchbox or the OpenedHand "misc" svn 
>    repo or the BSD projects approach to source control are probably in 
>    the minority.
> c) The git tooling and all the examples out there are geared up to 
>    single repos. git is very much a tool where you need to think as its 
>    authors do.


Agreed.


> Some of this can be addressed with clear example documentation about how
> to use git in this way.
> 
> Partly, these proposals are also working within the constraints of the
> git server solution we have too. Are we really in such a bad position
> that we need to change all the server setup over this or are there ways
> we can work within the existing system (or even extend gitolite)?


I don't know what gitolite is capable of. I would really like to be able
to create and destroy my own repositories in a central location with
other Yocto developers.

However, this doesn't block me from moving forward. I can use kernel.org
or dvhart.com to do this for the time being and make requests of the
admins when I have a repository that looks to have some staying power.
I'll have to time this transition appropriately so that I don't have to
ask too many people to migrate to the new URL, but that would be true of
a personal repository to official repository move as well.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Personal git repositories

[Darren Hart]

On 04/27/2011 03:47 PM, Darren Hart wrote:
> On 04/27/2011 02:03 PM, Richard Purdie wrote:
>> On Wed, 2011-04-27 at 10:20 -0700, Elizabeth Flanagan wrote:
>>> A few notes, since I talked with Darren about this earlier.
>>>
>>> As one of the people in charge of maintaining the git repo, I would like to
>>> avoid having, as Darren suggested, a whole bunch of -contrib repos. However,
>>> maybe I'm missing something here, as I think basic git solves this issue:
>>>
>>> Use Case: Tomz has a branch of meta-intel that he has pushed to
>>> poky-contrib.git:tomz/foo. dvhart wants to look at it from his local repo:
> 
> I'm curious how many people reading this feel this is "basic git". Anyone
> willing to admit this was the first time they have seen a targeted branch
> fetch used to avoid a larger download? If everyone is comfortable with this,
> fine. If not, we should consider the impact of this type of access on our
> users.
> 
>>> git remote add poky-contrib ssh://git@git.pokylinux.org/poky-contrib.git
>>> git fetch poky-contrib tomz/foo:foo
>>> git checkout foo
> 
> My biggest complaint with this is the lack of self discovery from within git
> without doing a git remote update. Unless tomz is online at the time to tell me
> it's tomz/foo-bar, not tomz/foo_bar, then I have to go load the web browser and
> check which branches are available, or resort to downloading all the objects.


I just realized another major issue I have with this approach. It
doesn't just mean that I _can_ use git fetch to get a specific branch to
avoid pulling in a massive pile of objects I don't need, it means I have
to stop using "git remote update" entirely for everything else I do in
that repository and I have to fetch all the other branches manually. The
recommended approach here is VIRAL.

--
Darren


> 
> 
> I confess though, it still just feels wrong to keep unrelated source trees in
> the same repository.
> 
>>>
>>> The fetch allows a sparse checkout of *just* tomz's branch. No need to
>>> download all 75M of poky-contrib which is what you would do with "git remote
>>> update". Git remote update is the wrong way to do this and I'd like to avoid
>>> having to swap infrastructure around when it seems to me that this is just
>>> one of those "git being a pain to learn"
>>
>> Just to add to this discussion, with gitolite, it should be easy to
>> setup a yocto-contrib repo where each user "owns" the branches under
>> <keyname>/*. This means as ssh keys are added, they'd automatically get
>> their own "scratch" area. As Beth points out above, its perfectly
>> possible to checkout branches and manipulate them as long as you know
>> the commands. 
>>
>> This isn't a set of repos per user but when you think about this, how
>> often do we really need that? Yes, some people like Bruce have usecases
>> but I'm not sure they're typical and in those small number of cases I'm
>> sure we can come up with some generic testing/dev repos to assist too.
>> As soon as something grows to the point where the branch is problematic,
>> it deserves its own repo and it should be properly namespaced, not user
>> specific anyway.
> 
> 
> I don't understand wanting to keep multiple distinct source trees in a single
> git repositorie. If you have two different layers in there, each in its own
> branch, then you can only work with one of them at a time. The end-user then has
> to have multiple clones of the same repository in order to work with their two
> layers. And they will end up naming them something like:
> 
> yocto-contrib-layer-1.git
> yocto-contrib-layer-2.git
> 
> And keep them checked out to the appropriate set of branches... that seems like
> a lot of pain to impose on users to avoid setting up personal git repositories.
> Personally, I think I would revert to my kernel.org repositories rather than try
> and make this work.
> 
> Or - is my git-fu weak? Is there a better way to handle the above?
> 

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel