At the upcoming FUDCon I plan to hold a session or two regarding requirements and discussions about the future of our package source control. This is NOT a time to argue about one SCM being "better" than another. I don't really want to hear any SCM names at all, rather I'm interested purely in only what we require and what we'd like out of our package source control. I'm sending this mail to get people thinking about it, and to give the people who won't be at FUDCon a chance at dropping their thoughts in. To get the ball rolling, here are a few of my requirements: Be able to track patches separately from the upstream source so that source rpms can easily be created. Be able to have a continuous development "branch" Be able to create release "branches" for doing updates for existing Fedora releases. Release "branches" should inherit history of the repo up until the release happened. Be able to re-create source rpm used to generate any shipped build at any time later, including same version of any helper scripts or metadata used. Be able to checkout only a given package and not the entire package tree Be able to support fine grained enough rights down to different release "branches" of a given package be able to be queried and pulled from anonymously (by the buildsystem, by the web, etc. Be able to trigger scripts such as pre/post commit be able to reliably disseminate commits as they happen to a selected group of people (per package & branch) Be useful for offline development Cheap "branches" Consistency across all modules for scripted actions like rebuilds easy between-branch merging for those who like to ship the same source rpm everywhere ideally, not rely on magic 'branch' files for the build & tag-fu to work I'll be gathering feedback over the next few days and putting them into a not as of yet created wiki page. Thank you all for your thoughtful consideration. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Description: This is a digitally signed message part