Re: Moving Gtk2-Perl to GNOME infrastructure

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 12:54:33AM +0100, Torsten Schoenfeld wrote:
> we (the gtk2-perl team) would like to move our stuff to GNOME servers.
> We already use it for our mailing list[1] and for bug tracking[2].
> What's left is revision control[3], tarball releases[4], and our
> page[5].  For those we still use SourceForge.

Using GNOME infrastructure is appreciated.. but ehr, I have some
comments.

> [1] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-perl-list
> [2] http://bugzilla.gnome.org/browse.cgi?product=gnome-perl
> [3] http://gtk2-perl.cvs.sourceforge.net/gtk2-perl/gtk2-perl-xs/
> [4] http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=64773
> [5] http://gtk2-perl.sourceforge.net/
> 
> I already fetched our CVS repository via rsync and converted it to SVN
> with cvs2svn -- the uncompressed dump file weighs in at ~290MiB.

SVN dumps are.. ehr.. massive (bigger than the eventual repositories).

> We would like to use the following repository layout in SVN:
> 
> gnome-perl
> + ExtUtils-Depends
>   + branches
>   + tags
>   + trunk
> ...
> + Glib
>   + branches
>   + tags
>   + trunk
> ...
> + Gtk2
>   + branches
>   + tags
>   + trunk
> ...
> 
> That is, for all our sub-projects, we would like to have a directory
> with the branches-tags-trunk structure.  The dump file implements this
> structure.  This deviates from the normal setup; gnomemm is a precedent
> though.  I think for this to work, we would need an exception from the
> usual trunk/MAINTAINERS rule -- we would add a gnome-perl/MAINTAINERS
> file, just like gnomemm.

gnomemm is actually not a precedent. It is scheduled for a splitup.
However, as it is just one SVN repos and it was during later stage in
the dev cycle (I didn't know about it beforehand) it was low on my
priority list.

> The repository name "gnome-perl" seems natural, especially since that's
> the name of our Bugzilla component.  On the other hand, there was
> previously a CVS repository with the same name wrapping the GNOME 1.x
> libraries.  Is that a problem?  If so, we could use "gnome2-perl".

I'd rather see a repository for the Glib binding, etc. However, not sure
of the naming. Suggestions? (release-team / you)

Best if it follows the b.g.o products (you can get more) + tarball names
exactly.

> Our tarballs are currently called Glib-1.180.tar.gz or
> Gnome2-VFS-1.081.tar.gz.  Due to the similarity with the actual
> libraries, it seems we can't just upload them normally to ftp.gnome.org.
> Would it be OK if we renamed the tarballs to something like
> perl-Gnome2-VFS-1.081.tar.gz prior to putting them onto ftp.gnome.org?

Would this be a problem for e.g. CPAN? Or would you use other tarball
names for this? Meaning: one name on CPAN, another for ftp.gnome.org?

I'd prefer as release-team dude to have everything stay the same. This
to avoid hacks in the scripts. Also wonder a bit about the versioning.
E.g. Glib 1.1.x = unstable, 1.2.x = stable would be very nice.

> Our page on SourceForge uses PHP -- would it be possible to get a
> project page with PHP enabled?

Ehr, we rather discourage that. Maybe if you cannot hack around it in
any way.. but no promises.

> How does this all sound?

Well, hopefully my reply is not too negative :-)

-- 
Regards,
Olav