Any ETA for this?

Sorry, we've been caught up with the release. Are you sure you want to keep it with as CVS?

Well, the only thing is that there's two branches of rpmdevtools currently under maintenance, and I have no experience with working with branches in Mercurial. But I guess it should be fairly easy, so if you want, go ahead and set it up.

I actually would not recommend hg if you want to use branches. It has some oddities when dealing with them. Instead I would recommend git, or just sticking with CVS. However trac doesn't have a source browser for CVS.

Hm, what VCS options are available for hosted.fp.org projects? I thought it was just hg.

With Trac Browser support:
git, hg, svn, bzr (I think)

Without Trac Browser support (but still hosted scm):
cvs

In that case I'd still prefer CVS for now.

sorry scop, this kind of got left behind and you kind of got screwed here. We don't actually have support for cvs on hosted right now, would you consider one of the the other scm's?

hg or git, I don't mind, as long as the tools used to create the initial repo from the current CVS will do the right thing with the MAIN and rpmdevtools-5 (CVS) branches.

Perfect, well its up to you on the converstion. You can convert and make it available for us to pull or we can convert. We'll just need to coordinate time so you know when to start using the new repo instead of the old.

Which will it be?

I did the conversion to hg, it appeared to work just fine. I'm a bit unsure how to place it online for you to pull though, so I tar'd the whole local hg repo up and uploaded to http://scop.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevtools-hg.tar.bz2 (gpg sig: http://scop.fedorapeople.org/rpmdevtools-hg.tar.bz2.sig) . Can you work from there? Switching over whenever is fine with me, all I need to know is when the new repo is up - I'll defer all commits until then.

Yow, I shouldn't have been so fast with creating the gitrpmdevtools group/doing a git conversion. Should we "edit" that group/put up the hg repo?

Well, as said, I don't really have opinions between hg or git; I happen to be a bit more familiar with hg so that's what I tried converting to whan I saw mmcgrath's comment.

Please feel free to proceed with either hg or git - if you need to pull the sources from CVS, the stuff is in the cvs.fedora.redhat.com:/cvs/fedora CVS root, repository fedora-rpmdevtools (but I'd prefer rpmdevtools as the name for the new SCM repo).

Sorry this took so long, hopefully, everything should be setup now:

FAS Group: gitrpmdevtools

Trac: https://fedorahosted.org/rpmdevtools/

Push access: ssh://git.fedoraproject.org/git/rpmdevtools.git/

Anonymous access: git://git.fedoraproject.org/git/rpmdevtools.git/, http://git.fedoraproject.org/git/rpmdevtools.git/

Let me know if everything is working fine.

Sorry for the long delay.

Looks mostly fine, but I'm not sure if there's something wrong about the rpmdevtools-5 branch or if I just don't grok git well enough yet:

Compared to master, the rpmdevtools-5 branch should contain the "test" directory, but not the "qa-robot" directory.

I created a local rpmdevtools-5 branch with "git branch --track rpmdevtools-5 origin/rpmdevtools-5" but when I switch to the branch from master with "git checkout rpmdevtools-5", the "qa-robot" dir stays around and the "test" dir does not appear. I'd expect qa-robot to disappear and test to appear when switching to it, and vice versa when switching to master. Is there something wrong with that expectation?

scop, are you still having problems with the converted repository?

The git master branch seems ok, but I still think that there might be a problem with the rpmdevtools-5 branch, see my previous comment. This is how I get it from git:

{{{
git clone git://git.fedoraproject.org/git/rpmdevtools.git
cd rpmdevtools
git checkout origin/rpmdevtools-5
}}}

...and like this from CVS:

{{{
cvs -d :ext:scop@cvs.fedora.redhat.com:/cvs/fedora co -r rpmdevtools-5 fedora-rpmdevtools
}}}

I would expect that after this, the checkouts would be equivalent apart from the .git and CVS dirs of course. But they're not; the git checkout has these things that shouldn't be in the rpmdevtools-5 branch:

{{{
qa-robot
qa-robot/.cvsignore
qa-robot/Makefile.am
qa-robot/rpmargs.in
qa-robot/rpmelfsym
qa-robot/rpmfile
qa-robot/rpmpeek.in
qa-robot/rpmsodiff.in
qa-robot/rpmsoname
qa-robot/tmpdir.sh.in
qa-robot/trap.sh.in
}}}

...and it does NOT have these files which it should have in that branch:

{{{
check-buildroot
check-rpaths
check-rpaths-worker
test
test/.cvsignore
test/Makefile.am
test/rpathtest.sh
}}}

Just following up on this ticket. Should we close it or do you still have work you'd like us to do? I'm not familiar with the errors above but we're going on many months so I'd assume they're not causing you issues.

Well, it has not been causing me issues in the sense that the rpmdevtools-5 branch has been in a pretty much unusable state so I've had to do the (little) work that the branch has needed elsewhere outside of a real upstream SCM. I guess committing to rpmdevtools-5 either in CVS or in the broken git branch would have made fixing the git branch even harder.

Soon after CentOS 5.3 is out, EL-5 will move on to rpmdevtools 6.x and the rpmdevtools-5 branch will be effectively discontinued as far as I'm concerned. EL-4 will stay at rpmdevtools 5.x but I suppose it'll need so few changes that those can be done outside of a SCM by those who maintain it.

If there's any chance that fixing the rpmdevtools-5 branch will cause problems for other branches, please just forget about fixing it. And as far as I'm concerned, fixing it now wouldn't have much value in the first place, too much time has passed. People who might work on 5.x should probably find some other place to do it.

K, sorry this didn't work out quite right. If you do have anything you'd like us to do in the future let us know.

I did some experiments the other day with a fresh import into Git of the original CVS repo and came up with the same results. So either the original CVS repo has some funkiness or there's something there that git-cvsimport can't handle. Or both. I don't have any solutions, but wanted to get this posted before I forgot about it.