From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga14.intel.com (mga14.intel.com [143.182.124.37]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E84F54C80188 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 17:48:02 -0500 (CDT) Received: from azsmga001.ch.intel.com ([10.2.17.19]) by azsmga102.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 15:48:02 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,276,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="426721200" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.13.11]) ([10.255.13.11]) by azsmga001.ch.intel.com with ESMTP; 27 Apr 2011 15:48:01 -0700 Message-ID: <4DB89D1E.3010307@intel.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 15:47:58 -0700 From: Darren Hart User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.14) Gecko/20110223 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.8 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Purdie References: <4DB786E3.4080800@linux.intel.com> <4DB82C1A.2030008@linux.intel.com> <4DB8506B.9000709@intel.com> <1303938199.21461.21.camel@rex> In-Reply-To: <1303938199.21461.21.camel@rex> Cc: yocto@yoctoproject.org Subject: Re: Personal git repositories X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 22:48:03 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > /*. 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