Source tree tidy

Source tree tidy

[Andrew Cooper]

Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which
appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus
are good candidates for deletion.

>From bitkeeper:
.bk-to-hg
.rootkeys
.hg-to-bk

>From mercurial:
.hgsigs

The .hgtags and .hgignore are still relevant given the git->hg mirror
(and certainly still used by XenServer)

While I could post a patch, doing so would be a huge email and quite
boring to read/review.

If the committers agree, would someone mind doing this without a formal
patch?

~Andrew

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Jackson]

Andrew Cooper writes ("Source tree tidy"):
> Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which
> appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus
> are good candidates for deletion.
> 
> >From bitkeeper:
> .bk-to-hg
> .rootkeys
> .hg-to-bk

I have no idea what these are but if we think anyone is using
bitkeeper I would want an explanation of what they are and what
implications there might be for removing them.

But probably no-one is using bitkeeper, in which case we can remove
them.

> >From mercurial:
> .hgsigs

Doesn't this latter contain information which hg needs if it wants to
verify a signed tag which was made with hg ?

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Andrew Cooper]

On 03/03/14 11:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Andrew Cooper writes ("Source tree tidy"):
>> Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which
>> appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus
>> are good candidates for deletion.
>>
>> >From bitkeeper:
>> .bk-to-hg
>> .rootkeys
>> .hg-to-bk
> I have no idea what these are but if we think anyone is using
> bitkeeper I would want an explanation of what they are and what
> implications there might be for removing them.
>
> But probably no-one is using bitkeeper, in which case we can remove
> them.
>
>> >From mercurial:
>> .hgsigs
> Doesn't this latter contain information which hg needs if it wants to
> verify a signed tag which was made with hg ?
>
> Ian.

In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used to
sign them doesn't appear to be published.

The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.

~Andrew

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:57 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/03/14 11:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Andrew Cooper writes ("Source tree tidy"):
> >> Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which
> >> appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus
> >> are good candidates for deletion.
> >>
> >> >From bitkeeper:
> >> .bk-to-hg
> >> .rootkeys
> >> .hg-to-bk
> > I have no idea what these are but if we think anyone is using
> > bitkeeper I would want an explanation of what they are and what
> > implications there might be for removing them.
> >
> > But probably no-one is using bitkeeper, in which case we can remove
> > them.

I think it is vanishingly unlikely and IIRC the bk->hg transition was
long before Xen 3.0.0 even.

> >
> >> >From mercurial:
> >> .hgsigs
> > Doesn't this latter contain information which hg needs if it wants to
> > verify a signed tag which was made with hg ?
> >
> In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used to
> sign them doesn't appear to be published.

Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg
tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).

> The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
> themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.

Since the release (and therefore sigs) would have been made on the
X.Y-testing.hg tree perhaps the release tags will be in the release
branch version of the file? Although maybe the original hg->git
conversion didn't pick that up?

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 06:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used to
> > sign them doesn't appear to be published.
> 
> Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg
> tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).

Also: http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpnp.html

(which I notice talks about hg tags still, Lars/Russell please can it be
updated to reflect the move to git)

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

Ian,

Easy to do.  Can you give me the text changes you want to make?

Thanks,

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:49 AM
To: Andrew Cooper
Cc: Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Ian Jackson; Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Russell Pavlicek; Lars Kurth
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 06:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used 
> > to sign them doesn't appear to be published.
> 
> Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg 
> tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).

Also: http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpnp.html

(which I notice talks about hg tags still, Lars/Russell please can it be updated to reflect the move to git)

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:13 +0000, Russell Pavlicek wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> Easy to do.  Can you give me the text changes you want to make?

Apart from the rename which Ian pointed out it should read something
like:

        We use this key to sign git tags on xen.git and qemu-xen-*.git,
        whenever we make a Xen release.

instead of the current refernce to xen-unstable.hg and Mercurial tags.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

Ian,

Text mod made.  Please verify it is correct (and check for other changes to make on the page, if any).

Looking at the page URL issue now.

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:22 AM
To: Russell Pavlicek
Cc: Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Ian Jackson; Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:13 +0000, Russell Pavlicek wrote:
> Ian,
> 
> Easy to do.  Can you give me the text changes you want to make?

Apart from the rename which Ian pointed out it should read something
like:

        We use this key to sign git tags on xen.git and qemu-xen-*.git,
        whenever we make a Xen release.

instead of the current refernce to xen-unstable.hg and Mercurial tags.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Jackson]

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> Text mod made.  Please verify it is correct (and check for other changes to make on the page, if any).

The change looks good.

The page title says "OpenPNP" too.  Can you easily search for links
which have the wrong anchor text or surrounding contextual text ?

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

Right.  Looking for that now. 

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Russell Pavlicek
Cc: Ian Campbell; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> Text mod made.  Please verify it is correct (and check for other changes to make on the page, if any).

The change looks good.

The page title says "OpenPNP" too.  Can you easily search for links which have the wrong anchor text or surrounding contextual text ?

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

New page is now:

http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpgp.html

Looking to see if there is a painless way to do the redirect from the old page.

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:35 AM
To: Russell Pavlicek
Cc: Ian Campbell; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> Text mod made.  Please verify it is correct (and check for other changes to make on the page, if any).

The change looks good.

The page title says "OpenPNP" too.  Can you easily search for links which have the wrong anchor text or surrounding contextual text ?

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Jackson]

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> New page is now:
> http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpgp.html

Thanks.  That's much better.

> Looking to see if there is a painless way to do the redirect from
> the old page.

I would say that I'm astonished that something as basic and
often-needed as a redirect can't be done easily.  After all, long-term
url stability is a well-known property of any well-run website.  But
sadly I am no longer surprised at the failings of Joomla...

Good luck.  I appreciate your efforts to wrestle with it.

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

>But sadly I am no longer surprised at the failings of Joomla...

You are not alone.  Believe me.

Still investigating...

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Russell Pavlicek
Cc: Ian Campbell; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> New page is now:
> http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpgp.html

Thanks.  That's much better.

> Looking to see if there is a painless way to do the redirect from the 
> old page.

I would say that I'm astonished that something as basic and often-needed as a redirect can't be done easily.  After all, long-term url stability is a well-known property of any well-run website.  But sadly I am no longer surprised at the failings of Joomla...

Good luck.  I appreciate your efforts to wrestle with it.

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

Okay.  Redirect is in place.  There's a plugin for that.

If anyone sees otherwise, please let me know.

Thanks,

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Russell Pavlicek 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:54 AM
To: 'Ian Jackson'
Cc: Ian Campbell; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

>But sadly I am no longer surprised at the failings of Joomla...

You are not alone.  Believe me.

Still investigating...

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:51 AM
To: Russell Pavlicek
Cc: Ian Campbell; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

Russell Pavlicek writes ("RE: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> New page is now:
> http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpgp.html

Thanks.  That's much better.

> Looking to see if there is a painless way to do the redirect from the 
> old page.

I would say that I'm astonished that something as basic and often-needed as a redirect can't be done easily.  After all, long-term url stability is a well-known property of any well-run website.  But sadly I am no longer surprised at the failings of Joomla...

Good luck.  I appreciate your efforts to wrestle with it.

Thanks,
Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 16:34 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The page title says "OpenPNP" too.  Can you easily search for links
> which have the wrong anchor text or surrounding contextual text ?

A google search "openpnp site:xenproject.org" highlighted
http://www.xenproject.org/sitemap.html too but it looks like this is now
fixed (or more likely it is autogenerated).

That was the only hit apart from the original wrong page.

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

Right.  That's all I found except for references from this email thread.

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Campbell [mailto:ian.campbell@citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:39 PM
To: Ian Jackson
Cc: Russell Pavlicek; Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Lars Kurth
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 16:34 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> The page title says "OpenPNP" too.  Can you easily search for links 
> which have the wrong anchor text or surrounding contextual text ?

A google search "openpnp site:xenproject.org" highlighted http://www.xenproject.org/sitemap.html too but it looks like this is now fixed (or more likely it is autogenerated).

That was the only hit apart from the original wrong page.

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Jackson]

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 06:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg
> > tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).
> 
> Also: http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpnp.html

"openpnp" ?

> (which I notice talks about hg tags still, Lars/Russell please can it be
> updated to reflect the move to git)

I think it would be beter if this page were renamed to the correct
name, with a redirect left behind.  People trying to find the right
key might become suspicious...

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Russell Pavlicek]

To my knowledge, Joomla truly sucks at redirects.  I'd probably have to do the redirect at the htaccess level AFAIK.  It really is an undesirable way to manage redirects, especially as they pile up over time.

Also, keep in mind that the naming convention for pages in Joomla is incidental compared to a Wiki or straight HTML.  You are most likely to arrive at a Joomla page because (a) you followed a hyperlink somewhere which probably is attached to some appropriately descriptive text, or (b) you used Google to find "OpenPGP" or similar useful text.

Most people will never be conscious of the URL of the page they are on, because there is no need to think in those terms.  And, if you look at some of the URLs you end up with using Joomla, that's a blessing.

So I can do a redirect, but I want to make sure it is necessary.  A quick Google doesn't seem to show me any external references to the page (but I will need to verify).  If there is no external reference, I suggest simply changing the page name and forgetting the redirect.

Russ Pavlicek
Xen Project Evangelist, Citrix Systems
Home Office: +1-301-829-5327
Mobile: +1-240-397-0199
UK VoIP: +44 1223 852 894


-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Jackson [mailto:Ian.Jackson@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 7:16 AM
To: Ian Campbell
Cc: Andrew Cooper; Keir (Xen.org); Tim (Xen.org); Jan Beulich; Xen-devel List; Russell Pavlicek; Lars Kurth
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy

Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 06:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an 
> > hg tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).
> 
> Also: 
> http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpnp.html

"openpnp" ?

> (which I notice talks about hg tags still, Lars/Russell please can it 
> be updated to reflect the move to git)

I think it would be beter if this page were renamed to the correct name, with a redirect left behind.  People trying to find the right key might become suspicious...

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:16 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Ian Campbell writes ("Re: [Xen-devel] Source tree tidy"):
> > On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 06:27 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > > Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg
> > > tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).
> > 
> > Also: http://www.xenproject.org/developers/teams/hypervisor/openpnp.html
> 
> "openpnp" ?

Apparently. Well spotted!

> > (which I notice talks about hg tags still, Lars/Russell please can it be
> > updated to reflect the move to git)
> 
> I think it would be beter if this page were renamed to the correct
> name, with a redirect left behind.  People trying to find the right
> key might become suspicious...

Better? I think both things need fixing as they are independent.

> 
> Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Andrew Cooper]

On 04/03/14 06:27, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-03-03 at 11:57 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/03/14 11:51, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> Andrew Cooper writes ("Source tree tidy"):
>>>> Looking through the root of the git tree, there are some files which
>>>> appear to be remnants of legacy source code management systems, and thus
>>>> are good candidates for deletion.
>>>>
>>>> >From bitkeeper:
>>>> .bk-to-hg
>>>> .rootkeys
>>>> .hg-to-bk
>>> I have no idea what these are but if we think anyone is using
>>> bitkeeper I would want an explanation of what they are and what
>>> implications there might be for removing them.
>>>
>>> But probably no-one is using bitkeeper, in which case we can remove
>>> them.
> I think it is vanishingly unlikely and IIRC the bk->hg transition was
> long before Xen 3.0.0 even.
>
>>>> >From mercurial:
>>>> .hgsigs
>>> Doesn't this latter contain information which hg needs if it wants to
>>> verify a signed tag which was made with hg ?
>>>
>> In theory, yes, although in practice the public half of the key used to
>> sign them doesn't appear to be published.
> Isn't it 0x57e82bd9? That one is on the keyservers. I don't have an hg
> tree handy to check it is actually used (we use it now though I think).

So it is.

>
>> The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
>> themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.
> Since the release (and therefore sigs) would have been made on the
> X.Y-testing.hg tree perhaps the release tags will be in the release
> branch version of the file? Although maybe the original hg->git
> conversion didn't pick that up?

They have indeed, and the 4.1 and 4.2 trees have further signatures in
them.  4.3, 4.4 and unstable hg trees all have the same set of sigs,
which do not include the releases.

~Andrew

Re: Source tree tidy

[Ian Campbell]

On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:20 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 04/03/14 06:27, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
> >> themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.
> > Since the release (and therefore sigs) would have been made on the
> > X.Y-testing.hg tree perhaps the release tags will be in the release
> > branch version of the file? Although maybe the original hg->git
> > conversion didn't pick that up?
> 
> They have indeed, and the 4.1 and 4.2 trees have further signatures in
> them.  4.3, 4.4 and unstable hg trees all have the same set of sigs,
> which do not include the releases.

Perhaps this is an artefact of the git->hg translation used on 4.3
onwards, i..e it only picks up the sigs which are visible from the
master branch. Perhaps Anthony knows, although I'm not sure how much
effort it is worth expending here...

Ian.

Re: Source tree tidy

[Anthony PERARD]

On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:18:49PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:20 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 04/03/14 06:27, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > >> The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
> > >> themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.
> > > Since the release (and therefore sigs) would have been made on the
> > > X.Y-testing.hg tree perhaps the release tags will be in the release
> > > branch version of the file? Although maybe the original hg->git
> > > conversion didn't pick that up?
> > 
> > They have indeed, and the 4.1 and 4.2 trees have further signatures in
> > them.  4.3, 4.4 and unstable hg trees all have the same set of sigs,
> > which do not include the releases.
> 
> Perhaps this is an artefact of the git->hg translation used on 4.3
> onwards, i..e it only picks up the sigs which are visible from the
> master branch. Perhaps Anthony knows, although I'm not sure how much
> effort it is worth expending here...

That's correct, if the tags was not in master, it won't be visible, like
any other files.

Also, I tryied to look at exporting tags from git to hg, it was a bit to
complicated, because it required a commit in hg that does not exist in
git.

-- 
Anthony PERARD

Re: Source tree tidy

[Andrew Cooper]

On 04/03/14 16:45, Anthony PERARD wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 04:18:49PM +0000, Ian Campbell wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-03-04 at 12:20 +0000, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 04/03/14 06:27, Ian Campbell wrote:
>>>>> The signed tags cover 4.1.0-rc1 thru 4.2.0-rc4, missing the releases
>>>>> themselves, so are not particularly interesting to verify.
>>>> Since the release (and therefore sigs) would have been made on the
>>>> X.Y-testing.hg tree perhaps the release tags will be in the release
>>>> branch version of the file? Although maybe the original hg->git
>>>> conversion didn't pick that up?
>>> They have indeed, and the 4.1 and 4.2 trees have further signatures in
>>> them.  4.3, 4.4 and unstable hg trees all have the same set of sigs,
>>> which do not include the releases.
>> Perhaps this is an artefact of the git->hg translation used on 4.3
>> onwards, i..e it only picks up the sigs which are visible from the
>> master branch. Perhaps Anthony knows, although I'm not sure how much
>> effort it is worth expending here...
> That's correct, if the tags was not in master, it won't be visible, like
> any other files.
>
> Also, I tryied to look at exporting tags from git to hg, it was a bit to
> complicated, because it required a commit in hg that does not exist in
> git.
>

Yes - the lack of tags in the hg mirrors is an annoyance, but I can see
why it is a pain to manage.  We (XenServer) do manage without them on
the testing.hg trees.

~Andrew