Bug 562636

Summary:	sys-fs/btrfs-progs-9999 outdated, please update remotes or remove
Product:	Gentoo Linux	Reporter:	Duncan <1i5t5.duncan>
Component:	[OLD] Core system	Assignee:	Mike Gilbert <floppym>
Status:	RESOLVED FIXED
Severity:	normal	CC:	slyfox
Priority:	Normal
Version:	unspecified
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Package list:		Runtime testing required:	---

Description Duncan 2015-10-09 10:07:13 UTC

btrfs-progs-9999 is outdated. It hasn't been updated since 4.2-rc1, while the latest release is 4.2.2 (in-tree already, from within a day or so of release =:^).

According to the wiki, here:

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Btrfs_source_repositories

... the kernel.org repos are now only updated for releases, on the master branch. Development branches are mentioned, but are specifically said not to be on kernel.org.

There is, however, another repo at repo.or.cz (the wiki page lists only the git: protocol URL), with a github mirror at https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs

Checking this github mirror, its devel branch is reported as 25 commits ahead of master, with the last commit less than a day ago, so definitely after 4.2.2 release.

Thus, a decision needs to be made regarding btrfs-progs-9999

1) If following devel is desired, the repo.or.cz and/or the github kdave repo, devel branch, should be followed.

2) If we're sticking to kernel.org, switch back to the master branch, and 9999 will follow the releases but obviously only update when a user rebuilds.

3) Simply remove 9999, since releases are far more regular now than they were back in the 0.19 to 3.12 era, when 9999 was really the best way, because releases were being made so seldom.

Personally, with the current kernel-cycle-synced versions and release schedule and with the gentoo maintainer so on the ball (thanks =:^), it's not a huge deal for me any longer. However, I'd prefer to stay on 9999, synced at least to master, because I'm following upstream closely enough that having the additional richness of git logs and the ability to easily bisect is definitely appreciated. And following the github/kdave devel branch would be fine too and what I'd normally expect for a live-build, more current with the list altho not as stable as master/release would be. But I'm sure there are some who would prefer the "official" kernel.org git, simply switching to the master branch, thus retaining stability while still offering git log detail and commit-specified bisectability, if needed.

But regardless of which of the three is chosen, a choice needs to be made, as the current 9999 is stale alread and the kernel.org devel branch it's pointed at now will apparently be getting no further updates.

Thanks again. =:^)

Comment 1 Mike Gilbert gentoo-dev

2015-10-09 10:28:47 UTC

commit 0ea031b415f976e9bb47a62a557ceaee6c846f31
Author: Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org>
Date:   Fri Oct 9 06:23:33 2015 -0400

    sys-fs/btrfs-progs: Point the live ebuild at a more lively git repo
    
    Bug: https://bugs.gentoo.org/562636
    
    Package-Manager: portage-2.2.22_p20

 sys-fs/btrfs-progs/btrfs-progs-9999.ebuild | 3 +--
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)

Comment 2 Duncan 2015-10-09 11:59:51 UTC

That was fast! Thanks once more! =:^)