Re: BZR repository upgrade re-proposal.

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:25 AM, Henrik Nordström
<henrik_at_henriknordstrom.net> wrote:
> tis 2012-09-04 klockan 11:41 +1200 skrev Amos Jeffries:
>
>> > There is also an alternative layout tree at /bzr/squid3-new-2a/ which
>> > flattens the tree to
>> >
>> > ../
>> > trunk
>> > 3.0
>> > 3.1
>> > 3.2
>> >
>> > getting rid of the CVS references and other legacy.
>>
>> Does this obsolete the CVS mirror completely? or do you mean that is
>> all pushed into the mirror sub-directories system instead of the bzr
>> repo?
>
> I did not mirror the CVS branches into squid3-new-2a. But trunk have
> full history as before. It is easy to copy over any additional branches
> if needed and the old repository will still be available to "resurrect"
> stuff from, only locked to prevent any accidental commits.
>
>> What do you mean by "other legacy"?
>
> There is a bit of cruft that have been collecting in branches/
>
> There likely also is some other active branches we want to keep like
> "mswin". The new layout is only a suggestion picking the most obvious
> main branches.
>
>> Okay. As long as we have a scheduled time and process how-to
>> distributed I don't see any problems there.
>
> Agreed. Upgrading using a local shared repository is fairly quick (some
> minutes at most).
>
>> Do we have administrative time to see this through before the 15th
>> Sept? I will be wanting to branch 3.3 by the end of this month and it
>> would make sense to deal with less branches in the migration.
>
> The actual switch is only two mv commands.
>
> If there is any persistent local bzr repositories in the build farm or
> anywhere else then those need to be verified 2a format. But I don't
> think we have any of those do we?

There are, but I will take care of that; the most impact will be a failed build.

> Add a couple of symlinks and we can support both branches/ and the
> proposed flattened layout at the same time, minimizing the number of
> scripts and branch URLs that need updating. We can then successively
> phase out the branches/ URLs when we see fit.

Great.
I'm holding off the merge for a few days, I hope that this discussion
will complete positively soon.

Robert said on IRC that his suggestion is to upgrade.

-- 
    /kinkie