[RFC] Repository layout change / Zmiana układu repo

[Radoslaw Zielinski]

Jan Rekorajski <baggins at sith.mimuw.edu.pl> [14-05-2007 13:41]:
> On Mon, 14 May 2007, Radoslaw Zielinski wrote:
>> Jan Rekorajski <baggins at sith.mimuw.edu.pl> [14-05-2007 00:55]:
[...]
>>> Come on, the repo will not magically grow by enormous amounts,
>> [...]
>> Now (for SPECS): 12k files.
>> With new layout: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k CVS/ + 3x12k CVS/*.
>> SVN: 12k files + 12k directories + 12k .svn/ +7x12k .svn/* + copies.
>> On my (laptop) hardware[1] I see a performance difference.  Big enough
>> to see it as an issue.
> Do you work with the whole repo?
> If yes, then how often do you _really_ need to cvs up the whole
> thing?

Recently: very rarely.  But I do it from time to time.

[...]
>>> 1) files that belong to more than one package, you either have to _know_
>>>    the involved packages and keep them synchronized or you will have a mess
>> It's just a couple of packages, isn't it?  Only relevant for SourceX,
>> which are fetched from DF anyway.  Files stored in VCS (patches, scripts
>> or whatever) are (or should be) named as %{name}*.
> Dream on...
> Why do you thing the repo grew by 200MB after split?

Did it?  Well, why?

>>> 2) orphans, we have ~900 files in SOURCES that don't belong to any
>>>    package currently
>> I might be guilty of forgetting to remove some of these myself...  But
>> then, is it really an issue?  If so, a daily or weekly cronjob can fix
>> it, can't it?
> Dream on...
> A ~7 hours cron job effectively killing access to CVS?

Mostly read-only operation would kill the access?  Even on a rsynced,
off-line copy?  Whoa.

Yes, there are a few issues with this cronjob.  All *solvable*, so let's
not get started, alright? ;-)

>>> 3) guesswork in case you work with more packages at once or with the
>>>    whole repo - hmm, file adfgasdfgda.patch does belong to what package?
>> Why would you care?  It's being looked up the other way: package -> *.patch.
> I care because I have to work with the whole repo.

Can you show the use case?

>>> And those were just everyday, common issues.
>> Honestly: I can't see these as issues.  And certainly not as everyday ones.
> Can I assume then that status quo is best for you?

Yes.

-- 
Radosław Zieliński <radek at pld-linux.org>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /mailman/pipermail/pld-devel-en/attachments/20070514/bded5f2b/attachment.sig