Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

Myk Melez 2017 September 26 at 17:40 Kartikaya Gupta 2017 September 26 at 08:49 So from the discussion here it sounds like using a full (i.e. non-grafted) cinnabar repository "just works" for most people. It has the problem of missing CVS his

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On 26/09/2017 16:49, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > So it seems to me that the next step is to have the operations team > take over ownership of the mozilla/gecko mirror. dhouse, do you know > what the process would be for that? I filed https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1406792 to keep the ba

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

Kartikaya Gupta 2017 September 26 at 08:49 So from the discussion here it sounds like using a full (i.e. non-grafted) cinnabar repository "just works" for most people. It has the problem of missing CVS history but it seems like people who need that often can use searchf

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

So from the discussion here it sounds like using a full (i.e. non-grafted) cinnabar repository "just works" for most people. It has the problem of missing CVS history but it seems like people who need that often can use searchfox and/or a gecko-dev branch in a cinnabar repo to get it. And we have

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

Ehsan Akhgari 2017 September 18 at 12:59 I think there is a way to have our cake and eat it too, which is enabling git-cinnabar to understand a custom mapping of SHA1 so that we can rewrite the history and have cinnabar be able to deal with that when it maps hg/

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

There are also some details about MozReview with git-cinnabar at: http://mozilla-version-control-tools.readthedocs.io/en/latest/mozreview/install-git.html though it doesn't seem to appear in the contents sidebar on the left, so it would be nice to make it more discoverable. (Though I suppose Phab

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

I started with that wiki page, but I am (lazy|efficient), so I automated it the next time I had to perform those steps in a different computer: https://github.com/sole/cinnabarify My script will set up remotes and stuff including setting up the helper (otherwise it'll be too slow for practical

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

I would recommend https://github.com/glandium/git-cinnabar/wiki/Mozilla:-A-git-workflow-for-Gecko-development. The other places should probably be updated to point at that. -Jeff On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 12:57 PM, Ethan Glasser-Camp wrote: > Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. It seems from these

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

Sorry if this is a bit off-topic. It seems from these threads that there is a more-or-less canonical way to use git to hack on Firefox. Where can I find out more about it? Looking online, the only information I could find was at https://github.com/glandium/git-cinnabar/wiki/Mozilla:-A-git-workflow

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Ehsan Akhgari wrote: > On 09/18/2017 03:30 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: >> >> CVS history feels like an odd bar for cinnabar. The goal of cinnabar is to >> enable seamless integration between git and mercurial with reproducible, 1:1 >> commit mappings. Our canonical mer

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > > I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I > tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves > moving a branch from one machine to another and the extra hassle that > results from mismatched SH

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On 09/18/2017 03:30 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: CVS history feels like an odd bar for cinnabar. The goal of cinnabar is to enable seamless integration between git and mercurial with reproducible, 1:1 commit mappings. Our canonical mercurial repositories don't have CVS history, so we shouldn't expec

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On 09/18/2017 02:35 PM, Jeff Muizelaar wrote: FWIW, https://github.com/jrmuizel/gecko-cinnabar doesn't have the CVS history so is no better than https://github.com/mozilla/gecko. Right. Jeff corrected my confusion on IRC. His repo has both lines of history, and the cinnabar conversion is on

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

CVS history feels like an odd bar for cinnabar. The goal of cinnabar is to enable seamless integration between git and mercurial with reproducible, 1:1 commit mappings. Our canonical mercurial repositories don't have CVS history, so we shouldn't expect the cinnabar clones of those repositories to h

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

FWIW, https://github.com/jrmuizel/gecko-cinnabar doesn't have the CVS history so is no better than https://github.com/mozilla/gecko. Having a canonical repo that includes the CVS history will make the SHA's incompatible with doing a direct conversion of hg which is a disadvantage. I'm not sure what

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On 09/18/2017 01:16 PM, Bobby Holley wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Andrew McCreight wrote: On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 8:25 AM, Andrew McCreight wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Kartikaya Gupta > wrote: > > > I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I > > tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves > > moving a branch from one machi

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

A few posts here and in the other thread have mentioned abstracting away complexity to servers as if it is a magical solution that makes all problems go away. Yes, deploying a server-side solution to do some "syncing" is doable and solves a subset of notable problems. But I advise extreme caution

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Myk Melez wrote: > Having said that, I agree that it's worth enabling developers to clone a > canonical Git repo. I've been syncing mozilla/gecko using cinnabar for a > while to experiment with ways of doing this. That's great, thanks. If we can do something like

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

I've had quite a few times (every time I get a new machine) that I've had issues with git-cinnabar and multiple machines. This has resulted in me just scp'ing my entire repo every time I get a new machine (which comes with its own set of issues... messed up paths in the .git/config, for example). I

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 7:05 AM, Kartikaya Gupta wrote: > I've tried using cinnabar a couple of times now and the last time I > tried, this was the dealbreaker for me. My worfklow often involves > moving a branch from one machine to another and the extra hassle that > results from mismatched SHAs

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

I agree having a canonical version would be very valuable. In the mean time if you want to avoid having to do the entire conversion locally you can start by cloning the cinnabar branch of https://github.com/jrmuizel/gecko-cinnabar which is a local full conversion that I painfully uploaded to github

Re: Canonical cinnabar repository

Kartikaya Gupta 2017 September 18 at 07:05 It seems to me that a lot of people are now assuming a cinnabar repo is the canonical way for git users to develop on mozilla-central. If we want to make this mozilla policy I don't really have objections, but I think that if w

Canonical cinnabar repository

This message was inspired by the `mach try` thread but is off-topic there so I think deserves its own thread. It seems to me that a lot of people are now assuming a cinnabar repo is the canonical way for git users to develop on mozilla-central. If we want to make this mozilla policy I don't really