Re: git-archimport

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Nov 12, 2005, 11:30 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90511120330y537c74cat56cce259ad661243@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20051111232428.GS9131@raven.localdomain>

On 11/12/05, Kevin Geiss <kevin@desertsol.com> wrote:

> it's not really public, perhaps I can make it public though. can a tla mirror
> be served over http? or does it require ssh?

It can be served over http, though the repo needs to be setup with some special options. You can easily setup a mirror that works over http, though I can't remember the exact options.

> I'm confident the gpg signatures aren't the problem. I imported some branches
> yesterday which were all signed, they worked fine.

Cool. That's good to know...

Show 5 quoted lines

> I suspuect the problem is that after tagging the oco branch from the base
> branch, there are several places where I replayed some patches from one of the
> branches to the other. some patches were skipped, some were replayed.  there
> was definitely a lot of hard core cherry picking going on, in both directions.
> do you think that would cause a problem?

The archimport script was written and tested against the branches I maintained in Arch, which had a reasonably rich and messy scheme of branching, cherry picking and replaying of patches. We just imported some additional branches from an unrelated project and it worked pretty well. So cherry picking/replaying itself should not be an issue.

On the other hand, some versions of tla are notoriously sloppy in the patchsets they generate, forgetting to add files or adding them in two consecutive patchsets. I don't think archimport is too tolerant, and I did find some particular patchsets that wouldn't work correctly.

I'm interested in patches that make the import more resilient, though. So if you can fixup archimport so your import works, and the patch is sane, I'll vouch for its inclusion.

cheers,

martin