Some upstream projects use Mercurial (hg) for their source development. Currently I keep clones where I maintain patches, bugfixes, etc. locally, while I would like to make this available to other parties. (Particular case is Mutt here, on which many distros benefit from each other's patches.) I would very much like it when there would be a place on Gentoo's hardware where I can push Mercurial repos to (e.g. Gentoo's Mutt tree, Gentoo Prefix's Portage), such that others can pull from there, and most preferably also inspect the sources, commits, etc. using HG web.
I totally support this request.
We want to focus at one VCS only, this is currently git. So there will be no other VCS besides the actual support ones (CVS/SVN/GIT) and we will remove CVS/SVN as soon as nobody else uses it any more.
Is this an official remark that says I have to find hosting myself? I feel the preference of a couple of people for some VCS is highly unrelated to the actual issue at hand here.
(In reply to comment #3) > Is this an official remark that says I have to find hosting myself? > > I feel the preference of a couple of people for some VCS is highly unrelated to > the actual issue at hand here. > (FYI: I am not on Infra, but I will butt in anyway.) Not to toe the old infra line; but stuff like this costs hardware and time to maintain and most users will just use git...so from a cost / benefit point of view it doesn't seem worth the effort to set up anything else. Oftentimes people think someone could just 'throw something together' and 'get it done in a couple of days' but this often leads to events that cause dissatisfaction for users (such as data loss, latency, or significant downtime.)
(In reply to comment #3) > Is this an official remark that says I have to find hosting myself? > I don't know the answer, but during gsoc I was "forced" to migrate my repository from mercurial to git, and after I become a dev I also had to create some git repositories due to these "infrastructure restrictions". Now I'm seriously considering move all my stuff back to mercurial hosted by myself, as I always did. I'd suggest you do the same. :( Regards
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > Is this an official remark that says I have to find hosting myself? > > I don't know the answer, but during gsoc I was "forced" to migrate my > repository from mercurial to git, and after I become a dev I also had to create > some git repositories due to these "infrastructure restrictions". Now I'm > seriously considering move all my stuff back to mercurial hosted by myself, as > I always did. > > I'd suggest you do the same. :( Well, we have gentooexperimental.org, so if you want to put it there, drop me a line, I guess we can work something out. I can live with that quite well as long as the official answer why Gentoo doesn't do this is not "we don't do it because it aint git".
For an official answer, we don't have the manpower for existing projects, let alone adding something more large like this. If there is something like gitolite that's a drop-in hosting solution for Hg, then it can get considered later on.
(In reply to comment #7) > If there is something like gitolite that's a drop-in hosting solution for Hg, > then it can get considered later on. > This is not the problem... http://www.lshift.net/mercurial-server.html I'm going to test it myself/add to the tree.
(In reply to comment #8) > (In reply to comment #7) > > If there is something like gitolite that's a drop-in hosting solution for Hg, > > then it can get considered later on. > > > > This is not the problem... > > http://www.lshift.net/mercurial-server.html > > I'm going to test it myself/add to the tree. > This looks like it has some potential. Provide detailed reports of your testing and we'll consider adding it as a secondary service of some sort.
Ok, that looks nice, a wrapper around hg-ssh, a solution that works very well for us right now. As offered before, if it is of any interest to the infra team to have a maintainer of a service like this, I'm happy to provide my time to do it.
if this gets full ack from infra, I'm willing to work on this, but IMO we need to migrate overlays to git.g.o first and either start killing SVN repos or import them in gitolite. Having to maintain 4 VCS's is madness
(In reply to comment #11) > > Having to maintain 4 VCS's is madness > Agreed, but lets focus this bug on the suitability of the proposed solution. Once we determine the software can be used we can decide if and when we implement it.
I offered to maintain this at some point (I'm a Mercurial developer, as well), and would still be open to doing that. I'd also very much appreciate being able to use hg on Gentoo infra for my Gentoo-related things (and possibly generally Python-related things, since they're using hg now, too).
BTW, I don't think there's much value in mercurial-server over just hg-ssh, hgweb and some maintenance scripts. I've set up the same thing on hg.python.org and use it on several of the other servers I maintain. If someone can just give us an SSH account and access to the web server config, we should be fine.
(In reply to comment #14) > BTW, I don't think there's much value in mercurial-server over just hg-ssh, > hgweb and some maintenance scripts. I've set up the same thing on hg.python.org > and use it on several of the other servers I maintain. If someone can just give > us an SSH account and access to the web server config, we should be fine. Agreed. I'm also volunteering to maintain this service. If the infra guys can grant we with (part of) a box for this service, we should be ok with hg-ssh, hgweb and djc's scripts.
(In reply to comment #15) > (In reply to comment #14) > > BTW, I don't think there's much value in mercurial-server over just hg-ssh, > > hgweb and some maintenance scripts. I've set up the same thing on hg.python.org > > and use it on several of the other servers I maintain. If someone can just give > > us an SSH account and access to the web server config, we should be fine. > > Agreed. > > I'm also volunteering to maintain this service. If the infra guys can grant we > with (part of) a box for this service, we should be ok with hg-ssh, hgweb and > djc's scripts. what kind of scripts are necessary? isn't the great thing of mercurial that everything is already in the mercurial package itself to have web, access and repo setup?
(In reply to comment #14) > If someone can just give us an SSH account and access to the web server config, > we should be fine. Just to clarify, ssh access to maintain a service won't be granted. All of our services are controlled via a central configuration management service (cfengine).
(In reply to comment #17) > (In reply to comment #14) > > If someone can just give us an SSH account and access to the web server config, > we should be fine. > > Just to clarify, ssh access to maintain a service won't be granted. All of our > services are controlled via a central configuration management service > (cfengine). but we just need a common user account to give access to the users. what would be wrong with this? and why we would need to use cfengine to handle a .ssh/authorized_keys file? :(
You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Where is the information from the testing that was supposed to happen?
(In reply to comment #19) > You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Where is the information from the > testing that was supposed to happen? ok, I'm running mercurial-server on my own server for some months, and it works as expected, but it's less complex that gitolite. But I agree with djc. This kind of thing is useless, as mercurial is "made to be simple", and we would need to patch mercurial-server to work as you guys are expecting (eg. be similar to gitolite).
(In reply to comment #19) > You guys are getting ahead of yourselves. Where is the information from the > testing that was supposed to happen? What kind of information are you looking for, exactly?
(In reply to comment #20) > ok, I'm running mercurial-server on my own server for some months, and it works > as expected, but it's less complex that gitolite. Did you ever had a look at rhodecode (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RhodeCode)? It is basically like a free and open mercurial version of github. We are using it at work for quite some time. RhodeCode came into my mind due to the fact that it uses ldap for authentication.
The point is not to host the envisaged repos externally, we have plenty of places where to do that.
(In reply to comment #23) > The point is not to host the envisaged repos externally, we have plenty of > places where to do that. I meant to install RhodeCode on one of the gentoo servers.
(In reply to comment #22) > (In reply to comment #20) > > ok, I'm running mercurial-server on my own server for some months, and it works > > as expected, but it's less complex that gitolite. > Did you ever had a look at rhodecode > (http://mercurial.selenic.com/wiki/RhodeCode)? It is basically like a free and > open mercurial version of github. We are using it at work for quite some time. > > RhodeCode came into my mind due to the fact that it uses ldap for > authentication. RhodeCode looks overkill. We don't need it IMHO.
RhodeCode actually looks much closer to what we want in terms of being able to manage Hg repos. However, why has nobody pointed our mercurial-server yet? http://www.lshift.net/mercurial-server.html This is as close of a gitolite-for-Hg that I've seen.
Sorry, I missed that rafael did suggest it. Why is that being ignored and instead promoting djc's scripts? Unless said scripts also run as a restricted SSH user, they don't fit our needs.
I'd rather keep using git on the server side and use hg-git to interoperate on the client side
Cumbersome, and that plugin isn't really stable (yet). I've encountered multiple issues for the portage repo for instance. Next, git doesn't know the same kind of branches that mercurial does. In particular those one would use when upstream uses mercurial too.
no.
Now as this is WONTFIX, why not creating a Gentoo project on googlecode in the same spirit as Gentoo on github.
(In reply to comment #31) > Now as this is WONTFIX, why not creating a Gentoo project on googlecode in > the same spirit as Gentoo on github. I think bitbucket is better, because it allows organizations, like github does.
(In reply to comment #32) > (In reply to comment #31) > > Now as this is WONTFIX, why not creating a Gentoo project on googlecode in > > the same spirit as Gentoo on github. > > I think bitbucket is better, because it allows organizations, like github > does. https://bitbucket.org/gentoo already created by some other dev.
