Re: Official GCC git repository

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernardo Innocenti]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
 > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>>  Fair enough.  I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
>>  mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
>>  there.
> 
> Email overseers@gcc.gnu.org and ask what kind of sponsorship they want
> to require for a shell account (for write access to repositories, we
> usually only require 1 sponsor, but these do not give you shell
> access).

As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to 
setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey 
Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on 
git.infradead.org.

At this time, the repository and git-svn metadata take up 2.5GB of disk 
space.  CPU usage is minimal.  I will just have to install a shell 
script running from my user crontab.

We don't require root access for ordinary maintenance, but someone would 
have to install and configure at least git-daemon and gitweb to make the 
mirror publicly accessible.

If it seems too much hassle for the benefit, we'll keep going with the 
existing git mirror on infradead.org, but I feel it would better serve 
our users and developers to at least mention it as an official mirror on 
our web site.


> I am happy to sponsor you if it helps.

Thanks, Daniel!

-- 
  \___/
  |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
   \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Angela Marie Thomas]

bernie@codewiz.org wrote:

> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >>  Fair enough.  I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
> >>  mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
> >>  there.
> > 
> > Email overseers@gcc.gnu.org and ask what kind of sponsorship they want
> > to require for a shell account (for write access to repositories, we
> > usually only require 1 sponsor, but these do not give you shell
> > access).
> 
> As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to 
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey 
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on 
> git.infradead.org.
> 
> At this time, the repository and git-svn metadata take up 2.5GB of disk 
> space.  CPU usage is minimal.  I will just have to install a shell 
> script running from my user crontab.
> 
> We don't require root access for ordinary maintenance, but someone would 
> have to install and configure at least git-daemon and gitweb to make the 
> mirror publicly accessible.
> 
> If it seems too much hassle for the benefit, we'll keep going with the 
> existing git mirror on infradead.org, but I feel it would better serve 
> our users and developers to at least mention it as an official mirror on 
> our web site.

If this happens and it needs to get backed up, I'll need to know where
it lives.  I just installed a beefier server in a colo for backups so
I have the space and bandwidth.

--Angela

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 23:47 +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >>  Fair enough.  I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
> >>  mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
> >>  there.
> > 
> > Email overseers@gcc.gnu.org and ask what kind of sponsorship they want
> > to require for a shell account (for write access to repositories, we
> > usually only require 1 sponsor, but these do not give you shell
> > access).
> 
> As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to 
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey 
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on 
> git.infradead.org.
> 
> At this time, the repository and git-svn metadata take up 2.5GB of disk 
> space.  CPU usage is minimal.  I will just have to install a shell 
> script running from my user crontab.

Actually, the newer git-svn's finally switched metadata format, so once
I get done moving it over, it will be ~350MB of git data and 50MB or so
of git-svn metadata. (rev_db vs rev_map format)

Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernardo Innocenti]

Harvey Harrison wrote:

> Actually, the newer git-svn's finally switched metadata format, so once
> I get done moving it over, it will be ~350MB of git data and 50MB or so
> of git-svn metadata. (rev_db vs rev_map format)

Finally.

-- 
 \___/
 |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 23:47 +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >>  Fair enough.  I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
> >>  mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
> >>  there.
> > 
> > Email overseers@gcc.gnu.org and ask what kind of sponsorship they want
> > to require for a shell account (for write access to repositories, we
> > usually only require 1 sponsor, but these do not give you shell
> > access).
> 
> As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to 
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey 
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on 
> git.infradead.org.

A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over:

1) generate a author's file so the commits have better than just a login
name as the commiter/author.

2) change the layout so it can be cloned just like any other git repo


Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernardo Innocenti]

Harvey Harrison wrote:

> A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over:
> 
> 1) generate a author's file so the commits have better than just a login
> name as the commiter/author.

Very good idea.  And the pairing should already be in the aliases
file on gcc.gnu.org.

> 2) change the layout so it can be cloned just like any other git repo

What would the problem be?  I have just cloned it normally.

-- 
 \___/
 |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Paolo Bonzini]

Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Harvey Harrison wrote:
> 
>> A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over:
>>
>> 1) generate a author's file so the commits have better than just a login
>> name as the commiter/author.

Or in the ChangeLog.

Paolo

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

Git-daemon is already running, i think (frank, is this right?)
On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
>  > Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
>  >>  Fair enough.  I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
>  >>  mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
>  >>  there.
>  >
>  > Email overseers@gcc.gnu.org and ask what kind of sponsorship they want
>  > to require for a shell account (for write access to repositories, we
>  > usually only require 1 sponsor, but these do not give you shell
>  > access).
>
>  As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to
>  setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey
>  Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on
>  git.infradead.org.
>
>  At this time, the repository and git-svn metadata take up 2.5GB of disk
>  space.  CPU usage is minimal.  I will just have to install a shell
>  script running from my user crontab.
>
>  We don't require root access for ordinary maintenance, but someone would
>  have to install and configure at least git-daemon and gitweb to make the
>  mirror publicly accessible.
>
>  If it seems too much hassle for the benefit, we'll keep going with the
>  existing git mirror on infradead.org, but I feel it would better serve
>  our users and developers to at least mention it as an official mirror on
>  our web site.
>
>
>
>  > I am happy to sponsor you if it helps.
>
>  Thanks, Daniel!
>
>
>
>  --
>   \___/
>   |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
>    \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/
>

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

> Git-daemon is already running, i think (frank, is this right?)

Yup.  We can slot in a gcc git mirror beside the half-dozen others we
already have.  (Angela: the payload data is under the new
/sourceware/projects/FOO-home/gitfiles directory; symlinks from /git.)

I'll try to set up the blank directories and then hand it over to
Bernardo for population and maintenance.

- FChE

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Angela Marie Thomas]

fche@redhat.com wrote:

> Yup.  We can slot in a gcc git mirror beside the half-dozen others we
> already have.  (Angela: the payload data is under the new
> /sourceware/projects/FOO-home/gitfiles directory; symlinks from /git.)

All of /sourceware/projects is backed up so it's covered.  Thanks.

--Angela

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:47:52PM +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> As stated above, I'd like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to 
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository.  I'd also suggest Harvey 
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on 
> git.infradead.org.

OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.

Harvey appears to have no sourceware account, so he'll need to request
one if necessary.

- FChE

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Frank Ch. Eigler]

Hi -

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:

> [...]
> OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
> as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.

Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.

- FChE

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Aaron Gray]

> Hi -
>
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
>> as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
>
> Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some 
> time.

Is there GIT Web support ?

Aaron

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi -
>
>  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>
>  > [...]
>
> > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
>  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
>
>  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
>

Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernardo Innocenti]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >  > [...]
> >
> > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
> >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
> >
> >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.

I'm ashamed I made so much fuss, and when it was my turn to
do something, it slipped under my radar.

I've been traveling around worse than Borat, and I'm still in
a hotel room somewhere.  Oh, is it really Wednesday?  Then I
must be in Brussels :-)


> Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
> wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).

Sure, thanks.  Go on!  Harvey knows git-svn better than I do, and
may have additional tips for you.

Harvey, what version of git-svn is required to get the more compact
*cough*sane*cough* metadata format?

Also check out ~bernie/bin/git-update-toolchain.sh on gcc.gnu.org.
This is what I intended to use to do the update.  I made it group
writable so you and Harvey can tweak it as needed.

-- 
 \___/
 |___|   Bernardo Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
  \___\  One Laptop Per Child - http://www.laptop.org/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
>  > > Hi -
>  > >
>  > >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > [...]
>  > >
>  > > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
>  > >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
>  > >
>  > >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
>
>  I'm ashamed I made so much fuss, and when it was my turn to
>  do something, it slipped under my radar.
>
>  I've been traveling around worse than Borat, and I'm still in
>  a hotel room somewhere.  Oh, is it really Wednesday?  Then I
>  must be in Brussels :-)
>
>
>
>  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
>  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
>  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
>
>  Sure, thanks.  Go on!  Harvey knows git-svn better than I do, and
>  may have additional tips for you.
>
>  Harvey, what version of git-svn is required to get the more compact
>  *cough*sane*cough* metadata format?
>

FWIW, i used git 1.5.5rc to build the repo. I originally started with
tags, and it used the new 'rev_map" format, but even in rev_map
format, the metadata for tags was about 3 gigs.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >
> >  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> >  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
> >  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
> >
> >  Sure, thanks.  Go on!  Harvey knows git-svn better than I do, and
> >  may have additional tips for you.
> >
> >  Harvey, what version of git-svn is required to get the more compact
> >  *cough*sane*cough* metadata format?
> >
> 
> FWIW, i used git 1.5.5rc to build the repo. I originally started with
> tags, and it used the new 'rev_map" format, but even in rev_map
> format, the metadata for tags was about 3 gigs.

Really?  When I add up all the metadata in my clone for the tags it's
less than 50 MB...where is all of your space taken up?

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
<harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
>  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > >
>  > >
>
> > >  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
>  > >  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
>  > >  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
>  > >
>  > >  Sure, thanks.  Go on!  Harvey knows git-svn better than I do, and
>  > >  may have additional tips for you.
>  > >
>  > >  Harvey, what version of git-svn is required to get the more compact
>  > >  *cough*sane*cough* metadata format?
>  > >
>  >
>  > FWIW, i used git 1.5.5rc to build the repo. I originally started with
>  > tags, and it used the new 'rev_map" format, but even in rev_map
>  > format, the metadata for tags was about 3 gigs.
>
>  Really?  When I add up all the metadata in my clone for the tags it's
>  less than 50 MB...where is all of your space taken up?

in .git/svn/tags

The .rev_map files are small (~4k, iirc), there are larger files in
each dir named "index".

You have all 800+ tags in less than 50 meg metadata?

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >  On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> >  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >

> in .git/svn/tags
> 
> The .rev_map files are small (~4k, iirc), there are larger files in
> each dir named "index".
> 
> You have all 800+ tags in less than 50 meg metadata?

rm .git/svn/tags/*/index

You don't need them.  Same goes for the index files in the branches.

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Harvey Harrison
<harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
>  > <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
>  > >  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >
>
>
> > in .git/svn/tags
>  >
>  > The .rev_map files are small (~4k, iirc), there are larger files in
>  > each dir named "index".
>  >
>  > You have all 800+ tags in less than 50 meg metadata?
>
>  rm .git/svn/tags/*/index
>
>  You don't need them.  Same goes for the index files in the branches.
>

Why does it create files named index if they are not needed?

This seems odd to me

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:57 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
> >  > <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >  On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> >  > >  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >
> >
> >
> > > in .git/svn/tags
> >  >
> >  > The .rev_map files are small (~4k, iirc), there are larger files in
> >  > each dir named "index".
> >  >
> >  > You have all 800+ tags in less than 50 meg metadata?
> >
> >  rm .git/svn/tags/*/index
> >
> >  You don't need them.  Same goes for the index files in the branches.
> >
> 
> Why does it create files named index if they are not needed?
> 
> This seems odd to me

This is an artifact, it now creates them on the fly from the git repo
rather than caching them.  git-svn should delete all of the temp index
files, if these are just leftovers from an old import, ok.  Otherwise
I'd send a bug report.

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Harvey Harrison
<harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:

>  This is an artifact, it now creates them on the fly from the git repo
>  rather than caching them.  git-svn should delete all of the temp index
>  files, if these are just leftovers from an old import, ok.  Otherwise
>  I'd send a bug report.

No, this was from a brand new import in a brand new dir performed two
weeks ago sunday (with a git version as it existed at noon on that day
:P)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 00:02 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> >  This is an artifact, it now creates them on the fly from the git repo
> >  rather than caching them.  git-svn should delete all of the temp index
> >  files, if these are just leftovers from an old import, ok.  Otherwise
> >  I'd send a bug report.
> 
> No, this was from a brand new import in a brand new dir performed two
> weeks ago sunday (with a git version as it existed at noon on that day
> :P)

I believe the fix for this went in between 1.5.4-rc2 and 1.5.4-rc3 FYI

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  > > Hi -
> >  > >
> >  > >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >  > >
> >  > >  > [...]
> >  > >
> >  > > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
> >  > >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
> >  > >
> >  > >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
> >
> >  I'm ashamed I made so much fuss, and when it was my turn to
> >  do something, it slipped under my radar.
> >
> >  I've been traveling around worse than Borat, and I'm still in
> >  a hotel room somewhere.  Oh, is it really Wednesday?  Then I
> >  must be in Brussels :-)
> >
> >
> >
> >  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> >  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
> >  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
> >

I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
name to Author?  If so I can rewrite my import and get the svn mirror
doing the rewrites from now on.

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Harvey Harrison
<harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
>  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
>  > >  > > Hi -
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  > [...]
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
>  > >  > >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
>  > >  > >
>  > >  > >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
>  > >
>  > >  I'm ashamed I made so much fuss, and when it was my turn to
>  > >  do something, it slipped under my radar.
>  > >
>  > >  I've been traveling around worse than Borat, and I'm still in
>  > >  a hotel room somewhere.  Oh, is it really Wednesday?  Then I
>  > >  must be in Brussels :-)
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > >  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
>  > >  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
>  > >  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
>  > >
>
>  I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
>  author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
>  name to Author?


Why would you want to do this?
We consider the login name to be the author.

>  If so I can rewrite my import and get the svn mirror
>  doing the rewrites from now on.
>
>  Harvey
>
>

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <bernie@codewiz.org> wrote:
> >  > > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  > >  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> >  > >  > > Hi -
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  > [...]
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
> >  > >  > >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
> >  > >  > >
> >  > >  > >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
> >  > >
> >  > >  I'm ashamed I made so much fuss, and when it was my turn to
> >  > >  do something, it slipped under my radar.
> >  > >
> >  > >  I've been traveling around worse than Borat, and I'm still in
> >  > >  a hotel room somewhere.  Oh, is it really Wednesday?  Then I
> >  > >  must be in Brussels :-)
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >
> >  > >  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> >  > >  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
> >  > >  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
> >  > >
> >
> >  I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
> >  author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
> >  name to Author?
> 
> 
> Why would you want to do this?
> We consider the login name to be the author.
> 

Lots of projects use the Name <email> format, gcc adds that to the
Changelog and the author is the login name, I was proposing to add
the Name <email> format to the git repo to make things like gitk
nicer to use.

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

>  Lots of projects use the Name <email> format, gcc adds that to the
>  Changelog and the author is the login name, I was proposing to add
>  the Name <email> format to the git repo to make things like gitk
>  nicer to use.

There is no singular mapping from login name to author, since we have
all used different email addresses in the changelog at different
times.
Login name has always been correct, and it would be wrong for us to
change history to try to represent our login name as if it has always
had our latest email address.

I would highly suggest you just use login name as the author.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:57 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >  Lots of projects use the Name <email> format, gcc adds that to the
> >  Changelog and the author is the login name, I was proposing to add
> >  the Name <email> format to the git repo to make things like gitk
> >  nicer to use.
> 
> There is no singular mapping from login name to author, since we have
> all used different email addresses in the changelog at different
> times.
> Login name has always been correct, and it would be wrong for us to
> change history to try to represent our login name as if it has always
> had our latest email address.
> 
> I would highly suggest you just use login name as the author.

I was only suggesting it as a nicity, if people are happy with the
login name alone, I'd suggest Bernardo just push the repo from
infradead over now as that is what is there.

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Paolo Bonzini]

> I was only suggesting it as a nicity, if people are happy with the
> login name alone.

What about "Real Name  <login@gcc.gnu.org>"?  The overseers have the 
mapping, or you can sort of guess it from the names in the ChangeLog. 
This has to be decided before the first push, so it's kind of urgent to 
decide it.

Paolo

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Paolo" == Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org> writes:

>> I was only suggesting it as a nicity, if people are happy with the
>> login name alone.

Paolo> What about "Real Name <login@gcc.gnu.org>"?  The overseers have
Paolo> the mapping, or you can sort of guess it from the names in the
Paolo> ChangeLog. This has to be decided before the first push, so
Paolo> it's kind of urgent to decide it.

I also think adding the Real Name is nice.

Maybe we should also consider adding the login as an additional field
in the MAINTAINERS file, as AFAIK every MAINTAINERS as a @gcc.gnu.org
address.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>> I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
>> author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
>> name to Author?
> I have a list that is about 4 months old.  Should be pretty complete.

Cute.  How about adding this to the GCC repository in some file parallel
to our MAINTAINERS file?  Something like MAINTAINERS.logins or so?

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> I also think adding the Real Name is nice.
> 
> Maybe we should also consider adding the login as an additional field
> in the MAINTAINERS file, as AFAIK every MAINTAINERS as a @gcc.gnu.org
> address.

That would be an alternative.  It would increase the width of MATINAINERS
above 80 characters, and I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be.

Either way, having this information in one central place sounds like a 
good idea.

Gerald

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Christopher Faylor]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 06:30:57PM +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Andreas Schwab wrote:
>>> I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
>>> author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
>>> name to Author?
>> I have a list that is about 4 months old.  Should be pretty complete.
>
>Cute.  How about adding this to the GCC repository in some file parallel
>to our MAINTAINERS file?  Something like MAINTAINERS.logins or so?
>
>On Thu, 27 Mar 2008, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>> I also think adding the Real Name is nice.
>> 
>> Maybe we should also consider adding the login as an additional field
>> in the MAINTAINERS file, as AFAIK every MAINTAINERS as a @gcc.gnu.org
>> address.
>
>That would be an alternative.  It would increase the width of MATINAINERS
>above 80 characters, and I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be.

I don't think adding YA place that has to be updated when things change
is a good idea.  If this is a script that runs on gcc.gnu.org then you
should be able to get the full name with a minimal amount of effort
using a getpw* function.

cgf

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Gerald Pfeifer]

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> I don't think adding YA place that has to be updated when things change
> is a good idea.  If this is a script that runs on gcc.gnu.org then you
> should be able to get the full name with a minimal amount of effort
> using a getpw* function.

Okay, I'll hack up a script.  It's not that simple as it might seem at 
first glance, since SVN has references to accounts which are not (or 
should not) be active any longer:

  NOfx
  NOchelf
  NOpbienst
  NObo
  NOgp
  NObbooth
  NOkargl

Actually, there are a number of further problems, and I'll take those
to overseers...

Gerald

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Andreas Schwab]

Harvey Harrison <harvey.harrison@gmail.com> writes:

> I've been waiting until I had the time to rewrite my import with proper
> author names.  Does anyone have a correspondence file mapping the login
> name to Author?

I have a list that is about 4 months old.  Should be pretty complete.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
PGP key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 832 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:53PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi -
> >
> >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
> >
> >  > [...]
> >
> > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
> >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
> >
> >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
> >
> 
> Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
> wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).

Any progress?

-- 
Regards,  Kirill A. Shutemov
 + Belarus, Minsk
 + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches but no
tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script up to update
it appropriately.

Note that i will not announce this anywhere until someone steps
forward to actually maintain it because i do not know GIT.  Neither of
the people who volunteered have done it even after repeated prodding
:(
(I don't mean to shame them, i am simply pointing out that it appears
we need new volunteers)

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Kirill A. Shutemov
<kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 02:38:53PM -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>  > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <fche@redhat.com> wrote:
>  > > Hi -
>  > >
>  > >  On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:41:42AM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote:
>  > >
>  > >  > [...]
>  > >
>  > > > OK, /git/gcc.git appears ready for you to populate & maintain.  Access
>  > >  > as {http,git,ssh}://gcc.gnu.org/gcc.git should all work.
>  > >
>  > >  Just a reminder - an empty git repository has been ready for you for some time.
>  > >
>  >
>  > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
>  > a svn root id of ssh://gcc.gnu.org//svn/gcc (IE the proper root if you
>  > wanted to be able to dcommit), and has all branches (but no tags).
>
>  Any progress?
>
>  --
>  Regards,  Kirill A. Shutemov
>   + Belarus, Minsk
>   + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>  Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
>
>  iEYEARECAAYFAkgEF60ACgkQbWYnhzC5v6oJ0gCfcCHQqB3TXubihzAvauZHttaJ
>  f+cAn1zgCkx8MggOjoKDYNW2pqNiGTtc
>  =l6Vg
>  -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Harvey Harrison]

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 01:34 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> overseers@gcc.gnu.org
> As I said, i already rsync'd in my repo, which has all the right id's
> etc set up for dcommitting to the right url if you clone it.
> 

I'm looking for an account to help with maintaining the git mirror of 
the gcc svn repo.  What do you need from me?


Cheers,

Harvey

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernie Innocenti]

Daniel Berlin wrote:
> I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches but no
> tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script up to update
> it appropriately.
> 
> Note that i will not announce this anywhere until someone steps
> forward to actually maintain it because i do not know GIT.  Neither of
> the people who volunteered have done it even after repeated prodding
> :(
> (I don't mean to shame them, i am simply pointing out that it appears
> we need new volunteers)

Yes, unfortunately I don't seem to find much time to dedicate
to this lately.  Sorry, I'm overwhelmed by higher priority
things at this time :-(

-- 
   \___/
   |___|    Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
    \___\   CTO OLPC Europe  - http://www.laptop.org/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 08:37:36AM +0200, Bernie Innocenti wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
>> I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches but no
>> tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script up to update
>> it appropriately.
>> 
>> Note that i will not announce this anywhere until someone steps
>> forward to actually maintain it because i do not know GIT.  Neither of
>> the people who volunteered have done it even after repeated prodding
>> :(
>> (I don't mean to shame them, i am simply pointing out that it appears
>> we need new volunteers)
> 
> Yes, unfortunately I don't seem to find much time to dedicate
> to this lately.  Sorry, I'm overwhelmed by higher priority
> things at this time :-(

Can anybody else can do it?

-- 
Regards,  Kirill A. Shutemov
 + Belarus, Minsk
 + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:

Daniel> I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches
Daniel> but no tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script
Daniel> up to update it appropriately.

Daniel,

how is the GIT repository synced? Is there a hook which updates it
after a svn commit?

I'm about to switch from infradead to gcc.gnu.org, and I want to make
sure that the latter is synced at least as frequently as the former
before I do that.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 6:31 AM, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> writes:
>
>  Daniel> I put my version of the gcc conversion (which has all branches
>  Daniel> but no tags) at git://gcc.gnu.org/git/gcc.git and set a script
>  Daniel> up to update it appropriately.
>
>  Daniel,
>
>  how is the GIT repository synced? Is there a hook which updates it
>  after a svn commit?

No.
It is synced every 30 minutes.

>
>  I'm about to switch from infradead to gcc.gnu.org, and I want to make
>  sure that the latter is synced at least as frequently as the former
>  before I do that.

I have strong doubts that whether it is synced every commit or every
30 minutes seriously affects your development.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:

| >  how is the GIT repository synced? Is there a hook which updates it
| >  after a svn commit?
| 
| No.
| It is synced every 30 minutes.
| 
| >
| >  I'm about to switch from infradead to gcc.gnu.org, and I want to make
| >  sure that the latter is synced at least as frequently as the former
| >  before I do that.
| 
| I have strong doubts that whether it is synced every commit or every
| 30 minutes seriously affects your development.

Where did I wrote that it would "seriously affect my development"?

However, having it synced periodically rather than after every commit is
an annoyance. For example, when I see an interesting commit, I sometimes
want to look at it once installed in the sources; the easiest solution
is to refresh my git repository and look at it. If it's not there yet,
it's an annoyance.

When one of my patches get approved, before committing it, I rebase it
on the latest sources and put it at the bottom of my patch stack and checks
that it at least still compiles cleanly. If git is not in sync, it's an
annoyance.

When I commit one of my patches, I remove it from my git patch stack
and rebase other patches on top of the upstream git repository, which
should now include the patch I just checked in. If git is not in sync,
I have to either leave for up to 30 minutes with one patch missing,
or I have to wait for up to 30 minutes before I can remove the original
from my tree.  It's an annoyance.

As you see, no, it doesn't "seriously affect my development", it just
makes it less practical and, more importantly from my point of view,
less fun. Especially when there are no obstacles to making it be more
practical but a one-time setup.

So having git refresh itself after a SVN commit would be great :)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>  | >  how is the GIT repository synced? Is there a hook which updates it
>  | >  after a svn commit?
>  |
>  | No.
>  | It is synced every 30 minutes.
>  |
>  | >
>  | >  I'm about to switch from infradead to gcc.gnu.org, and I want to make
>  | >  sure that the latter is synced at least as frequently as the former
>  | >  before I do that.
>  |
>  | I have strong doubts that whether it is synced every commit or every
>  | 30 minutes seriously affects your development.
>
>  Where did I wrote that it would "seriously affect my development"?

Then who cares whether it is synced instantaneously or not?

>
>  However, having it synced periodically rather than after every commit is
>  an annoyance.

True, but it won't change anytime soon because it would place more
load, and require more locking (since there is no guarantee a git sync
will finish before the next commit occurs).

>  So having git refresh itself after a SVN commit would be great :)

Again, not gonna happen anytime soon.
Sorry.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:

| >  However, having it synced periodically rather than after every commit is
| >  an annoyance.
| 
| True, but it won't change anytime soon because it would place more
| load, and require more locking (since there is no guarantee a git sync
| will finish before the next commit occurs).

More load? Come on, you are doing 48 "svn update" a day right now by
syncing every 30 minutes without even knowing if a commit took place or
not. What I am proposing would make one "svn update" per svn commit.
Hardly more load, probably even less.

As far as locking is concerned, I was thinking of a procmail script
catching mail received from gcc-cvs and doing something like:

  :0:/tmp/svn2git
  * ^To: gcc-cvs@gcc.gnu.org
  | (cd /to/git/repo && git svn fetch)

This is not hard to do, put an equivalent or a lighter strain on the svn
server, gives a much better synchronized repository and takes care of
the locking.

And if you want to make sure that you don't have more than one svn
update per minute in case something goes wrong, adding a "sleep 60"
between the parentheses won't change the number of "svn update" done by
this procmail script but will at least space them in time.

| >  So having git refresh itself after a SVN commit would be great :)
| 
| Again, not gonna happen anytime soon.
| Sorry.

I know that you don't like git, but I was happy to see that you volunteered
anyway to setup the GIT repository when the person who was supposed to
do it became MIA. But now that you have done the hard part, I don't
understand why you explicitly refuse to do the small part which is
needed to make the GIT repository that you populated easy and pleasant
to use.

If it is because you don't have time to do it, I am volunteering to finish
the setup, make it ready for wide use, and setup what is necessary to
keep it up-to-date, just send me the required credentials so that I can
take care of it.

  Sam

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
> | >  However, having it synced periodically rather than after every commit is
>  | >  an annoyance.
>  |
>  | True, but it won't change anytime soon because it would place more
>  | load, and require more locking (since there is no guarantee a git sync
>  | will finish before the next commit occurs).
>
>  More load? Come on, you are doing 48 "svn update" a day right now by
>  syncing every 30 minutes without even knowing if a commit took place or
>  not. What I am proposing would make one "svn update" per svn commit.

I know you think this is personal, as per your email below, but it really isn't.
I had it set up to do it after every commit, and it drove our load
average up a noticeable amount.
As such, I stopped doing it and set it to run every 30 minutes.
>  I know that you don't like git, but I was happy to see that you volunteered
>  anyway to setup the GIT repository when the person who was supposed to
>  do it became MIA. But now that you have done the hard part, I don't
>  understand why you explicitly refuse to do the small part which is
>  needed to make the GIT repository that you populated easy and pleasant
>  to use.

I'm not sure why you think this is some personal vendetta I have.
I tried what you ask, it causes noticeably more load, so i stopped doing it.

I can't see how only being updated every 30 minutes is somehow "less
easy and pleasant to use".
This is the price you pay for not being the main version control system.
The same is true of the mercurial mirror, it is only updated every 30 minutes.
I have not discriminated against git in any way, shape or form, and in
fact had tried what you suggest before moving to this model.

FWIW, if the git repo or the mercurial repo started seriously driving
up the load average of the server, we would turn them off, because
neither is the main version control system of gcc.
This is just the price you pay for not being the official repo.

--Dan

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:

| I know you think this is personal, as per your email below, but it really isn't.
| I had it set up to do it after every commit, and it drove our load
| average up a noticeable amount.
| As such, I stopped doing it and set it to run every 30 minutes.
|
| >  I know that you don't like git, but I was happy to see that you volunteered
| >  anyway to setup the GIT repository when the person who was supposed to
| >  do it became MIA. But now that you have done the hard part, I don't
| >  understand why you explicitly refuse to do the small part which is
| >  needed to make the GIT repository that you populated easy and pleasant
| >  to use.
| 
| I'm not sure why you think this is some personal vendetta I have.
| I tried what you ask, it causes noticeably more load, so i stopped doing it.

I don't think this is personal at all, on the contrary: you stated
publicly that GIT is not your SCM of choice, which is of course
perfectly right, and you set it up anyway, so I don't think you have a
personal vendetta running against git :)

| I can't see how only being updated every 30 minutes is somehow "less
| easy and pleasant to use".
| This is the price you pay for not being the main version control system.
| The same is true of the mercurial mirror, it is only updated every 30 minutes.
| I have not discriminated against git in any way, shape or form, and in
| fact had tried what you suggest before moving to this model.
| 
| FWIW, if the git repo or the mercurial repo started seriously driving
| up the load average of the server, we would turn them off, because
| neither is the main version control system of gcc.
| This is just the price you pay for not being the official repo.

I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the same
machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org"
would allow to split the load between machines (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org"
and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same machines originally).

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:07 PM, Samuel Tardieu <sam@rfc1149.net> wrote:
> On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
>
>
>  I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the same
>  machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org"
>  would allow to split the load between machines (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org"
>  and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same machines originally).

This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :)
Sadly, machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons around gcc.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >  I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the
   >  same machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and
   >  "git.gcc.gnu.org" would allow to split the load between machines
   >  (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same
   >  machines originally).

   This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :) Sadly,
   machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons around gcc.

Maybe they could be hosted on Savannah?  The CVS repo. used to be
synced there.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:57 PM, Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
>    >  I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the
>    >  same machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and
>    >  "git.gcc.gnu.org" would allow to split the load between machines
>    >  (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same
>    >  machines originally).
>
>    This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :) Sadly,
>    machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons around gcc.
>
>  Maybe they could be hosted on Savannah?  The CVS repo. used to be
>  synced there.
>

Used to, and then one day they just stopped doing it without telling
anyone, and questions went unanswered.

So uh, thanks but no thanks :)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >    >  I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on
   >    >  the same machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org"
   >    >  and "git.gcc.gnu.org" would allow to split the load between
   >    >  machines (even if "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org"
   >    >  are the same machines originally).
   >
   >    This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :)
   >    Sadly, machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons
   >    around gcc.
   >
   >  Maybe they could be hosted on Savannah?  The CVS repo. used to
   >  be synced there.

   Used to, and then one day they just stopped doing it without telling
   anyone, and questions went unanswered.

Sorry, that never happend AFAIK.  I used the GCC CVS repo
there, was never out of sync for me.

   So uh, thanks but no thanks :)

Same thing can happen here; nothing extraordinary with that...

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Jonathan Larmour]

[Trimmed CCs to just overseers]
Daniel Berlin wrote:
> 
> This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :)
> Sadly, machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons around gcc.

I don't really know about the issues involved, but anyone can set up a 
unofficial mirror, so I'm not sure the DNS name would have to be an issue, 
as long as it remained unofficial, which it sort of would be anyway since 
it's not the main VCS.

As for machines, there's server1.sourceware.org and 
server2.sourceware.org, although IIRC disk space may be an issue? 
Apologies if you're already aware of them and it wouldn't work :-). 
Anyway, just thought I'd mention it if you really were interested.

Jifl
-- 
------["The best things in life aren't things."]------      Opinions==mine

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:47 PM, Jonathan Larmour <jifl@jifvik.org> wrote:
> [Trimmed CCs to just overseers]
>
>  Daniel Berlin wrote:
>
> >
> > This would be a great idea, if only we had more machines :)
> > Sadly, machines and dns names are tricky for political reasons around gcc.
> >
>
>  I don't really know about the issues involved, but anyone can set up a
> unofficial mirror, so I'm not sure the DNS name would have to be an issue,
> as long as it remained unofficial, which it sort of would be anyway since
> it's not the main VCS.

If we are willing to have git.gcc.gnu.org and hg.gcc.gnu.org be
different machines, i believe i can get some google machines in a
datacenter to host them.


>
>  As for machines, there's server1.sourceware.org and server2.sourceware.org,
> although IIRC disk space may be an issue? Apologies if you're already aware
> of them and it wouldn't work :-).

Ah, the issue with this one is the same with any separate machine.
I'd have to rsync the svn tree after every commit, instead of just git
imports.
If we are going to have to do that, might as well do it to a competely
new machine than use our already limited resources for something like
this :)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Christopher Faylor]

After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on gcc.gnu.org so that
the git repository is updated every time an email message is received
from the gcc-cvs mailing list.

We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load hit.  If so,
we'll probably drop back to Dan's original method.

cgf

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

On 18/04, Christopher Faylor wrote:

| After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on gcc.gnu.org so that
| the git repository is updated every time an email message is received
| from the gcc-cvs mailing list.

Great! Thanks to both of you.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[NightStrike]

On 4/18/08, Christopher Faylor
<cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on gcc.gnu.org so that
> the git repository is updated every time an email message is received
> from the gcc-cvs mailing list.
>
> We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load hit.  If so,
> we'll probably drop back to Dan's original method.

FWIW, I did a quick calculation of the current month of commits, and
there is an average of 31 per day, throwing out a crazy outlier of
121.

Incorporating the 121 brings the average to 36 (next highest past 121
is 53, all other values are below 38.

Data set for April:
33 16 39 46 35 36 53 15 21 25 31 38 121 26 21 27 39 32 41

Re: Official GCC git repository

[NightStrike]

On 4/19/08, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/08, Christopher Faylor
> <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
> Incorporating the 121 brings the average to 36 (next highest past 121
> is 53, all other values are below 38.

s/38/48, 48 being the number of daily commits under the 30 minute model

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:30 AM, NightStrike <nightstrike@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 4/18/08, Christopher Faylor
>
>
> <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
>  > After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on gcc.gnu.org so that
>  > the git repository is updated every time an email message is received
>  > from the gcc-cvs mailing list.
>  >
>  > We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load hit.  If so,
>  > we'll probably drop back to Dan's original method.
>
>  FWIW, I did a quick calculation of the current month of commits, and
>  there is an average of 31 per day, throwing out a crazy outlier of
>  121.
>
>  Incorporating the 121 brings the average to 36 (next highest past 121
>  is 53, all other values are below 38.

The problem with commits is that the average is not what matters.
Commits are bursty.
People make 5 commits to different branches in the course of a minute
or two, then there is nothing for another 15 minutes, etc.

Re: Official GCC git repository

[NightStrike]

On 4/19/08, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> The problem with commits is that the average is not what matters.
> Commits are bursty.
> People make 5 commits to different branches in the course of a minute
> or two, then there is nothing for another 15 minutes, etc.

Oh.  Well...  I still had fun writing the script :)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[David Woodhouse]

On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 11:34 -0400, NightStrike wrote:
> On 4/19/08, Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org> wrote:
> > The problem with commits is that the average is not what matters.
> > Commits are bursty.
> > People make 5 commits to different branches in the course of a minute
> > or two, then there is nothing for another 15 minutes, etc.
> 
> Oh.  Well...  I still had fun writing the script :)

Yeah, if performance is an issue, it'd probably help to play with
responses to the commit trigger -- maybe wait for 2 minutes for the repo
to become idle, and then prevent another update within 5 minutes
(picking numbers out of my wossname).

-- 
dwmw2

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Kirill A. Shutemov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 417 bytes --]

Some of branches situated not on top of /branch directory in svn. For
example redhat branches situated under /branch/redhat. There is only one
branch 'redhat' in the git repository, that contain all redhat branches as
directory. It's not very suitable. Does it possible to track this branches
separatly in git?

-- 
Regards,  Kirill A. Shutemov
 + Belarus, Minsk
 + ALT Linux Team, http://www.altlinux.com/

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> writes:

Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
Christopher> time an email message is received from the gcc-cvs
Christopher> mailing list.

Christopher> We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load
Christopher> hit.  If so, we'll probably drop back to Dan's original
Christopher> method.

It looks like the GIT repository hasn't been synced since yesterday.

  Sam
-- 
Samuel Tardieu -- sam@rfc1149.net -- http://www.rfc1149.net/

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> writes:
>
>Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
>Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
>Christopher> time an email message is received from the gcc-cvs
>Christopher> mailing list.
>
>Christopher> We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load
>Christopher> hit.  If so, we'll probably drop back to Dan's original
>Christopher> method.
>
>It looks like the GIT repository hasn't been synced since yesterday.
>

Yes:

Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware error: invalid object 6c380017b3c68b8efc917ae3447e62b0fd76b009
Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware fatal: git-write-tree: error building trees; the index is unmerged?
Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware write-tree: command returned error: 128

What fun!

cgf

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Christopher Faylor]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:42PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>>>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> writes:
>>
>>Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
>>Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
>>Christopher> time an email message is received from the gcc-cvs
>>Christopher> mailing list.
>>
>>Christopher> We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load
>>Christopher> hit.  If so, we'll probably drop back to Dan's original
>>Christopher> method.
>>
>>It looks like the GIT repository hasn't been synced since yesterday.
>>
>
>Yes:
>
>Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware error: invalid object 6c380017b3c68b8efc917ae3447e62b0fd76b009
>Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware fatal: git-write-tree: error building trees; the index is unmerged?
>Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware write-tree: command returned error: 128
>
>What fun!

In case it isn't obvious, I don't know how to fix this.

cgf

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Samuel Tardieu]

On 24/04, Christopher Faylor wrote:

| In case it isn't obvious, I don't know how to fix this.

Well, I guess it fixed itself then since it's now working again :)

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Daniel Berlin]

It fixed itself. :)

On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:09 PM, Christopher Faylor
<cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 05:14:42PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>  >On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 08:09:57PM +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
>  >>>>>>> "Christopher" == Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please@sourceware.org> writes:
>  >>
>  >>Christopher> After consultation with Dan, I have set things up on
>  >>Christopher> gcc.gnu.org so that the git repository is updated every
>  >>Christopher> time an email message is received from the gcc-cvs
>  >>Christopher> mailing list.
>  >>
>  >>Christopher> We'll be monitoring the system to see if there is a load
>  >>Christopher> hit.  If so, we'll probably drop back to Dan's original
>  >>Christopher> method.
>  >>
>  >>It looks like the GIT repository hasn't been synced since yesterday.
>  >>
>  >
>  >Yes:
>  >
>  >Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware error: invalid object 6c380017b3c68b8efc917ae3447e62b0fd76b009
>  >Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware fatal: git-write-tree: error building trees; the index is unmerged?
>  >Apr 23 20:41:28 sourceware write-tree: command returned error: 128
>  >
>  >What fun!
>
>  In case it isn't obvious, I don't know how to fix this.
>
>  cgf
>

Re: Official GCC git repository

[Bernie Innocenti]

On Fri, 2008-04-18 at 21:07 +0200, Samuel Tardieu wrote:

> I think the mistake is to have them (git & hg) hosted on the same
> machine as svn. Having them on "hg.gcc.gnu.org" and "git.gcc.gnu.org"
> would allow to split the load between machines (even if
> "hg.gcc.gnu.org"
> and "git.gcc.gnu.org" are the same machines originally).

I have not measured, but we're certainly not talking about
such a relevant amount of load to require multiple dedicated
servers.

-- 
  \___/
  |___|  Bernie Innocenti - http://www.codewiz.org/
   \___\ CTO OLPC Europe  - http://www.laptop.org/