rpm5 (Re: rpm -Uhv --oldpackage loses configs)

[Jeffrey Johnson]

> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:04 AM, Elan Ruusamäe <glen at delfi.ee> wrote:
> 
> On 08.06.2016 01:04, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> (aside)
>> I spent a week converting the entire @rpm5.org cvs repository to git
>> last year at git.rpm.org. There has been exactly zero interest in accessing,
>> too little interest to even contemplate switching the repository into
>> "production" every day use imho.
> and how exactly one should know it should be accessed?
> 

Well, both you and arekm are members of the RPM5 project ,,, which is where
a CVS -> GIT conversion was both requested and discussed more than a year ago,

I asked for RPM ROADMAP suggestions, and the only suggestion I have received
(last year, and repeatedly since 2008) was a deafening chant of
	GIT! GIT! GIT! GIT! GIT!

So I did the conversion and described the result. Not one person (there are at least
4 members of the RPM5 project who have repeatedly asked for a git repository)
expressed any interest in the result.

*shrug* Apathy ain’t my problem mon, nor do I believe that I should force anyone to
use what they asked for. That’s life, mostly a waste of time and effort.

> there's no "news" on frontpage, http://rpm5.org/
> says that Production version of RPM is 5.3.6
> clicking "sources" link http://rpm5.org/sources.php gives just cvs info
> roadmap http://rpm5.org/roadmap.php speaks about 2007
> last news item is from 2008 http://rpm5.org/news.php
> or is it 2009? why it's under 2008?
> there's no "blog" either announcing cool and fun stuff that some active projects do
> 

Yep. I also do not announce RPM5 releases, nor advertise RPM5 features, nor advocate RPM5 direction.
All these roles are handled by other volunteers @rpm5.org.

> the only way to even know about cvs->git, is to subscribe to mailinglist,
> again so 1990s. i personally won't do that, it's too much noise to be subscribed to mailing lists.

The irony here is that subscribing to project mailing lists are part of _YOUR_ responsibilities
as a member of the RPM5 project. So go ask yourself why the content at http://rpm5.org has
not changed for many years.

> oh, and git.rpm5.org gives centos standard page, so can't even clone the repo to see it's conversion quality.
> 
> ps: you could also write "blog" (mailinglist post in your case) of your cvs2git progress, would be fun to read how you did it, problems encountered, how solved, as i understand rpm5 cvs repo was quite unique, i haven't seen 2.x cvs revisions anywhere else.
> 

Why should I write a blog about a conversion chore? ESR’s instructions (and RSE’s 3 weeks
of repository repair work back when RPM5 was launched) were more than adequate, the
conversion was rather straight forward.

Similarly, why should *I* (as the only active project developer0 use git when cvs is more than
adequate for my own development purposes? GIT is great for large distributed active development
projects, but all of “large”, “distributed” and “active” do not apply to the RPM5 project, so GIT is
rather overkill.

I’d also rather not hear the knee-jerk reply
	Well you have no active developers because you aren’t using GIT! GIT! GIT!
See above: I _DID_ the CVS->GIT conversion and no member of the RPM5 project
has bothered to even ask for access.

> and also i think i've made at least 1 commit to rpm5 cvs repo. i was never contacted to be asked what i wish my author email to be, that is not nice.
> 

Yup, I did not bother converting e-mail addresses.

Exactly similar to the @rpm.org git repository, where I am not credited with any commits whatsoever, nor was I asked
what my e-mail address currently is.

*shrug*

73 de Jeff
> -- 
> glen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pld-devel-en mailing list
> pld-devel-en at lists.pld-linux.org
> http://lists.pld-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/pld-devel-en