Re: bcache-tools ITP

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Robie Basak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2631 bytes --]

I have some progress to report. I also think that this is ready to
upload, though we should sort out a couple of things first.

I've added the bcache list (this is the Debian packaging bug) since
there is a question about some of these commits that seem to be relevant
to upstream but aren't in the upstream branch.

I've done some (functional only) testing of bcache itself with a
colleague, and we haven't seen any major issues.

I think the packaging is good to go, though I've added a removal of one
extraneous file and updated debian/copyright. This is in
github.com/basak/bcache-tools. I haven't submitted any pull requests to
avoid confusion (see below).

A colleague (James Page) is a DD and is prepared to upload, provided
that we all agree on who will maintain the package first. I'm happy to
step up. Who else does?

I found following all the various git trees confusing, and think we
should resolve this soon after upload. There are three git trees I'm
aware of, and I've added a fourth:

1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git
2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git
3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git
4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git

Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to
contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
"upstream" repository (1).

Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and
where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work
on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having
scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the
upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example.

I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and
this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
work from.

In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that
one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.

So in summary:

1) Define and agree maintainers.
2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
Vcs-Git for now.
3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are
any objections to James uploading.
4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
and push all commits to those places.

In the meantime, I'll upload to Ubuntu as I can do that straight away
and we're quite close to release now. I hope that we can get Debian
straightened out soon.

Robie

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Robie Basak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 673 bytes --]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and
> where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work
> on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having
> scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the
> upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example.

I've looked again and I see that 1.0.7 is tagged in the Github repos,
but not in evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git.

Does this mean that the Github repos are now the canonical upstream?
Should the page at http://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/ be changed?

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[David Mohr]

About the licensing & copyright: I emailed Gabriel and Kent Overstreet 
on 2014-06-02 but did not get a reply. I admit though that I didn't 
follow up afterwards.

On 2014-09-17 05:55, Robie Basak wrote:

As far as I know this is the status of the git trees:

> 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git

Original sources, no changes in a while.

> 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git

First clone by Gabriel, contains work and bugfixes to the bcache-tools 
userland and some initial Debian packaging.

> 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git

My work on Debian packaging. I set Vcs-Git to g2p's version instead of 
mine because that seems to be the most active upstream repository. I 
thought this was relevant for uscan, but obviously I was wrong (as was 
pointed out on mentors.debian.net).

> 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git

> Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem 
> to
> contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
> "upstream" repository (1).

I thought that (1) is historic at this point and considered (2) the 
upstream. I did not verify that though.

I would suggest to co-maintain the package on 
https://alioth.debian.org/projects/collab-maint

> I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go 
> and
> this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
> work from.

Fine by me.

> In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned 
> that
> one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
> commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.

Right, see above.

> So in summary:
> 
> 1) Define and agree maintainers.

I'd like to get my feet wet and co-maintain, if you're interested.

> 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
> Vcs-Git for now.

I'd say point it at 3) or at collab-maint, if that's where the packaging 
ends up being.

> 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
> reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there 
> are
> any objections to James uploading.

Bernd Zeimetz, I added him to the CC, was willing to sponsor the package 
once it was ready. But since he has been pretty busy recently, I don't 
think he'll object to James uploading. I definitely don't; it'd be 
awesome to get this finally into the official repository!

> 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
> and push all commits to those places.

I very much agree.

~David

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Darrick J. Wong]

Hi,

If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with
you to get (and keep) it in Debian.  I /think/ it's in the Fedora package.

(afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> I have some progress to report. I also think that this is ready to
> upload, though we should sort out a couple of things first.
> 
> I've added the bcache list (this is the Debian packaging bug) since
> there is a question about some of these commits that seem to be relevant
> to upstream but aren't in the upstream branch.
> 
> I've done some (functional only) testing of bcache itself with a
> colleague, and we haven't seen any major issues.
> 
> I think the packaging is good to go, though I've added a removal of one
> extraneous file and updated debian/copyright. This is in
> github.com/basak/bcache-tools. I haven't submitted any pull requests to
> avoid confusion (see below).
> 
> A colleague (James Page) is a DD and is prepared to upload, provided
> that we all agree on who will maintain the package first. I'm happy to
> step up. Who else does?
> 
> I found following all the various git trees confusing, and think we
> should resolve this soon after upload. There are three git trees I'm
> aware of, and I've added a fourth:
> 
> 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git
> 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git
> 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git
> 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git

I had thought that #2 was the new upstream, but then I haven't paid attention
in a while either.

--D

[1] https://gist.github.com/djwong/6343451

> 
> Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to
> contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
> "upstream" repository (1).
> 
> Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and
> where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work
> on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having
> scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the
> upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example.
> 
> I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and
> this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
> work from.
> 
> In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that
> one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
> commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.
> 
> So in summary:
> 
> 1) Define and agree maintainers.
> 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
> Vcs-Git for now.
> 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
> reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are
> any objections to James uploading.
> 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
> and push all commits to those places.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll upload to Ubuntu as I can do that straight away
> and we're quite close to release now. I hope that we can get Debian
> straightened out soon.
> 
> Robie

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Robie Basak]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 590 bytes --]

(cutting out everything but the list, since this isn't directly related
to the Debian ITP)

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:21:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with
> you to get (and keep) it in Debian.  I /think/ it's in the Fedora package.
> 
> (afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...)

Can we get your script upstream (wherever it is that we decide it is) so
that it just ships and distributions don't individually have to carry
it?

For a start, maybe send g2p a pull request?

Robie

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Rolf Fokkens]

Indeed it's included in the Fedora package!

Rolf

> Op 18 sep. 2014 om 01:21 heeft "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with
> you to get (and keep) it in Debian.  I /think/ it's in the Fedora package.
> 
> (afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...)
> 
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 12:55:38PM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
>> I have some progress to report. I also think that this is ready to
>> upload, though we should sort out a couple of things first.
>> 
>> I've added the bcache list (this is the Debian packaging bug) since
>> there is a question about some of these commits that seem to be relevant
>> to upstream but aren't in the upstream branch.
>> 
>> I've done some (functional only) testing of bcache itself with a
>> colleague, and we haven't seen any major issues.
>> 
>> I think the packaging is good to go, though I've added a removal of one
>> extraneous file and updated debian/copyright. This is in
>> github.com/basak/bcache-tools. I haven't submitted any pull requests to
>> avoid confusion (see below).
>> 
>> A colleague (James Page) is a DD and is prepared to upload, provided
>> that we all agree on who will maintain the package first. I'm happy to
>> step up. Who else does?
>> 
>> I found following all the various git trees confusing, and think we
>> should resolve this soon after upload. There are three git trees I'm
>> aware of, and I've added a fourth:
>> 
>> 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git
>> 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git
>> 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git
>> 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git
> 
> I had thought that #2 was the new upstream, but then I haven't paid attention
> in a while either.
> 
> --D
> 
> [1] https://gist.github.com/djwong/6343451
> 
>> 
>> Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to
>> contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
>> "upstream" repository (1).
>> 
>> Can we define which the canonical upstream source tree is, please, and
>> where the canonical Debian packaging branch should be? Then we can work
>> on pushing the changes back to the right places, rather than having
>> scattered branches all over the place. I noticed some changes to the
>> upstream source that don't appear to be in branch 1, for example.
>> 
>> I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and
>> this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
>> work from.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that
>> one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
>> commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.
>> 
>> So in summary:
>> 
>> 1) Define and agree maintainers.
>> 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
>> Vcs-Git for now.
>> 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
>> reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are
>> any objections to James uploading.
>> 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
>> and push all commits to those places.
>> 
>> In the meantime, I'll upload to Ubuntu as I can do that straight away
>> and we're quite close to release now. I hope that we can get Debian
>> straightened out soon.
>> 
>> Robie
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Rolf Fokkens]

Hi,

For the Fedora package I solely aimed at the (Kent's) evilpiepirate bcache-tools repo. Most development was done in Gabriel's (g2p) repo in preperation of the Fedora package, but that was merged by Kent prior to the Fedora package release.

After that not much has happened in Kent's repo, and te status of that repo is unclear to me.

Rolf

> Op 18 sep. 2014 om 00:35 heeft David Mohr <david@mcbf.net> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> About the licensing & copyright: I emailed Gabriel and Kent Overstreet on 2014-06-02 but did not get a reply. I admit though that I didn't follow up afterwards.
> 
> On 2014-09-17 05:55, Robie Basak wrote:
> 
> As far as I know this is the status of the git trees:
> 
>> 1) http://evilpiepirate.org/git/bcache-tools.git
> 
> Original sources, no changes in a while.
> 
>> 2) git://github.com/g2p/bcache-tools.git
> 
> First clone by Gabriel, contains work and bugfixes to the bcache-tools userland and some initial Debian packaging.
> 
>> 3) git://github.com/squisher/bcache-tools.git
> 
> My work on Debian packaging. I set Vcs-Git to g2p's version instead of mine because that seems to be the most active upstream repository. I thought this was relevant for uscan, but obviously I was wrong (as was pointed out on mentors.debian.net).
> 
>> 4) git://github.com/basak/bcache-tools.git
> 
>> Vcs-Git points to 2 (g2p). I also noted that the github branches seem to
>> contain commits to the upstream source, too, that aren't present in the
>> "upstream" repository (1).
> 
> I thought that (1) is historic at this point and considered (2) the upstream. I did not verify that though.
> 
> I would suggest to co-maintain the package on https://alioth.debian.org/projects/collab-maint
> 
>> I think it would be easiest to upload, since I think it's good to go and
>> this will at least result in a definitive packaging state that we can
>> work from.
> 
> Fine by me.
> 
>> In the meantime, I think branch 3 contained everything, so I cloned that
>> one to add my two commits. To keep Vcs-Git correct g2p should pull my
>> commits, or else we can change Vcs-Git.
> 
> Right, see above.
> 
>> So in summary:
>> 1) Define and agree maintainers.
> 
> I'd like to get my feet wet and co-maintain, if you're interested.
> 
>> 2) g2p to pull my commits, or we agree to change Vcs-Git, or we drop
>> Vcs-Git for now.
> 
> I'd say point it at 3) or at collab-maint, if that's where the packaging ends up being.
> 
>> 3) Upload. Either my colleague (James Page) can do it as he's already
>> reviewed the packaging itself, or someone else. Let me know if there are
>> any objections to James uploading.
> 
> Bernd Zeimetz, I added him to the CC, was willing to sponsor the package once it was ready. But since he has been pretty busy recently, I don't think he'll object to James uploading. I definitely don't; it'd be awesome to get this finally into the official repository!
> 
>> 4) Sort out which trees are canonical upstream and packaging branches,
>> and push all commits to those places.
> 
> I very much agree.
> 
> ~David
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: bcache-tools ITP

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 08:59:58AM +0100, Robie Basak wrote:
> (cutting out everything but the list, since this isn't directly related
> to the Debian ITP)
> 
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 04:21:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > If you're interested in the bcache-status[1] tool, I'd be happy to work with
> > you to get (and keep) it in Debian.  I /think/ it's in the Fedora package.
> > 
> > (afaict the script is not in any of those git trees...)
> 
> Can we get your script upstream (wherever it is that we decide it is) so
> that it just ships and distributions don't individually have to carry
> it?
> 
> For a start, maybe send g2p a pull request?

I sent one to Gabriel, we'll see what he says.

--D

> 
> Robie