2024-01-30T23:20:52Z Stuart Henderson <stu@spacehopper.org>:
> On 2024/01/30 22:58, Johannes Thyssen Tishman wrote:
>> Subject says it all. I'm wondering if using the git conversion of the ports tree[0] is regarded as a good alternative to CVS for working with ports. Are the conversion updates frequent enough to not cause any issues? Do any of you porters use it instead of CVS? Any issues?
>>
>> For the record, I've been using CVS just fine without any problems. I just feel more comfortable with git.
>>
>> [0] https://github.com/openbsd/ports
>>
>> --
>> Johannes Thyssen Tishman
>> https://www.thyssentishman.com
>
> They are fairly frequent (currently run hourly, though this may change
> if they start taking too long to run), but don't include the most recent
> commit (CVS commits are not atomic, and the conversion tool is looking
> for a different commit before it will treat the previous one as done)
> so at certain times (especially during tree locks for release) you can
> be waiting a while for a commit to show up.
>
> Also there are no tools which successfully managed to convert branches
> and tags in the OpenBSD CVS repo (we tried everything we could find
> at the time when it was set up, everything which handles them had
> some problem or other, and the range of software has not really expanded
> since) - so the git conversion is limited to dealing with -current only
> and there's no way to work with -stable or releases.
Thanks for clarifying Stuart. I guess I'll just test it for a while and see if I run into any issues. I'll keep an eye for those you mentioned though and report back if needed. Regarding the branches issue, I really only use the ports tree for porting new software and maintaining a couple of ports, so -current is enough. Thanks again!
No comments:
Post a Comment