[buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
31 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Chris Withers
Hi All,

I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:

reinout-scripts
gary-4-include-site-packages

What more needs to happen for these to get merged to trunk and a release
made?

cheers,

Chris

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Chris Withers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:
>
> reinout-scripts

Not sure. I need to review this.

> gary-4-include-site-packages

afaik, Gary is reconsidering his approach.  I'm not sure what the
current status is.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Reinout van Rees
On 01/19/2010 01:06 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Chris Withers<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Hi All,
>>
>> I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:
>>
>> reinout-scripts
>
> Not sure. I need to review this.

Do you need me to make a fresh branch off the current trunk?

The changes were pretty isolated in one spot if memory serves me.

Only possibly tricky bit is the test I added for it: the only practical
way I could find to test it was to add an old-style script to one of the
existing demo test packages. iirc.



Reinout

--
Reinout van Rees - [hidden email] - http://reinout.vanrees.org
Programmer/advisor at http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl
"Military engineers build missiles. Civil engineers build targets"

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Reinout van Rees
In reply to this post by Chris Withers
On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>
> gary-4-include-site-packages

include-site-packages branch: from what I see in the changelog
(http://tinyurl.com/y9x27oj), this would mean that a globally installed
package is found by buildout/setuptools' dependency handling?

So if I install PIL with debian's apt-get, buildout doesn't attempt to
grab another copy from pypi?  Unsure about that from reading the changelog.


Reinout


--
Reinout van Rees - [hidden email] - http://reinout.vanrees.org
Programmer/advisor at http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl
"Military engineers build missiles. Civil engineers build targets"

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
In reply to this post by Reinout van Rees
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Reinout van Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 01/19/2010 01:06 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Chris Withers<[hidden email]>
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:
>>>
>>> reinout-scripts
>>
>> Not sure. I need to review this.
>
> Do you need me to make a fresh branch off the current trunk?

No

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Gary Poster-4
In reply to this post by Reinout van Rees

On Jan 19, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Reinout van Rees wrote:

> On 01/19/2010 11:15 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>>
>> gary-4-include-site-packages

I'm getting back to this this week.  The new branch is svn+ssh://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zc.buildout/branches/gary-4 .  It has most of what I intend but needs a bit more work.  It could be ready for Jim's review this week.

> include-site-packages branch: from what I see in the changelog (http://tinyurl.com/y9x27oj), this would mean that a globally installed package is found by buildout/setuptools' dependency handling?
>
> So if I install PIL with debian's apt-get, buildout doesn't attempt to grab another copy from pypi?  Unsure about that from reading the changelog.

The old branch supported that, with the right buildout configuration, and if apt-get installed the package as an egg.

The new branch does not try for that.  It simply builds dependency sets ignoring the Python's site.py (so, ignoring site-packages).  If desired, you can have scripts import site.py *after* the buildout eggs have been set up (so if your buildout did not require PIL, but your system's Python had it, your code could use the system's version if you were willing to open yourself up to that potential fragility), but that's the only integration.

If it is really desired, I could look at porting the work later from the previous branch (after the basic work on the new approach lands).  I am currently of the opinion that it is too tricky for too rare of a win (and I don't need it right now ;-) ).

Gary
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Yonsy Solis
On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 11:29 -0500, Gary Poster wrote:

> The new branch does not try for that.  It simply builds dependency sets ignoring the Python's site.py (so, ignoring site-packages).  If desired, you can have scripts import site.py *after* the buildout eggs have been set up (so if your buildout did not require PIL, but your system's Python had it, your code could use the system's version if you were willing to open yourself up to that potential fragility), but that's the only integration.
>
> If it is really desired, I could look at porting the work later from the previous branch (after the basic work on the new approach lands).  I am currently of the opinion that it is too tricky for too rare of a win (and I don't need it right now ;-) ).

Gary, exist any way that this feature to exclude the site-packages can
be coded like an buildout extension ?

--
Yonsy Solis
Aureal Systems
(mov) 989-124-141
(www) http://www.aureal.com.pe


_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Gary Poster-4

On Jan 19, 2010, at 12:08 PM, Yonsy Solis wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-01-19 at 11:29 -0500, Gary Poster wrote:
>
>> The new branch does not try for that.  It simply builds dependency sets ignoring the Python's site.py (so, ignoring site-packages).  If desired, you can have scripts import site.py *after* the buildout eggs have been set up (so if your buildout did not require PIL, but your system's Python had it, your code could use the system's version if you were willing to open yourself up to that potential fragility), but that's the only integration.
>>
>> If it is really desired, I could look at porting the work later from the previous branch (after the basic work on the new approach lands).  I am currently of the opinion that it is too tricky for too rare of a win (and I don't need it right now ;-) ).
>
> Gary, exist any way that this feature to exclude the site-packages can
> be coded like an buildout extension ?

Not that I see, no.  It needs changes that are at the heart of the buildout code, AFAIK.

Gary
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Ross Patterson-2
In reply to this post by Jim Fulton
Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> writes:

> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 11:00 AM, Reinout van Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 01/19/2010 01:06 PM, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 5:15 AM, Chris Withers<[hidden email]>
>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering what the state of play is with the following branches:
>>>>
>>>> reinout-scripts
>>>
>>> Not sure. I need to review this.
>>
>> Do you need me to make a fresh branch off the current trunk?
>
> No

I've run into the problem of buildout not installing distutils `scritps`
many times.  This means I can't use buildout when I would like to.  It's
also worth noting that pip handles this properly.

At the moment, I'm writing a buildout tutorial whose aim is to help
developers using Python understand the utility and core concepts of
buildout.  It's really unfortunate I can't tell them to do use the
following `buildout.cfg` to get the `docutils` scripts in an isolated
buildout:

    [buildout]
    parts = docutils
   
    [docutils]
    recipe = zc.recipe.egg

Can we possibly get this branch merged and a release made?

Ross

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Reinout van Rees
On 24-03-12 20:56, Ross Patterson wrote:
> Can we possibly get this branch merged and a release made?

 From what I remembered from 2.5 year ago was that the fix was pretty
small. I think I only had to call some setuptools function, basically.


Would it be an idea to move zc.buildout out of the zope svn repo into
github? It is quite central to many non-zope projects and nobody outside
of zope is going to bother with a contributor agreement, I think. And
some extra outside effort into buildout would be nice.

A good thing about github (or xxx or yyy) would be the ease of pull
requests. And a pull request coupled with a visible bug report "scripts
don't work" stands more chance of being included than a 2.5 year old
simple fix in some branch with some old mailinglist messages.


And... I'd love a list of current maintainers of zc.buildout that are
allowed to commit to trunk. iirc Jim only works on the python 3 port
("1.5.x is too hard to understand now") and the 1.5.x trunk itself
hasn't seen any development lately as far as I could see, despite people
being stuck on 1.4.x. So... who's maintaining buildout right now?


Reinout

--
Reinout van Rees                    http://reinout.vanrees.org/
[hidden email]             http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl/
"If you're not sure what to do, make something. -- Paul Graham"

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Reinout van Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 24-03-12 20:56, Ross Patterson wrote:
>>
>> Can we possibly get this branch merged and a release made?
>
>
> From what I remembered from 2.5 year ago was that the fix was pretty small.

I guess that depends on what you men by small.  I don't consider the
change small.  I would call it straight forward.

I wish this had gotten merged before the 1.5 changes.  I'm sorry.

> I think I only had to call some setuptools function, basically.

Looks like more than that.

> Would it be an idea to move zc.buildout out of the zope svn repo into
> github?

Yes. In fact, I was just looking at that.  Github's review mechanism
is particularly attractive.

(AFAICT, bitbucket doesn't have a review/comment process like
 github's.  All I see is the ability to accept or reject pull
 requests. I only know either from reading docs. If I'm mistaken,
 please correct me, as the review process is what makes me lean toword
 github.)

> It is quite central to many non-zope projects and nobody outside of
> zope is going to bother with a contributor agreement, I think.

Yes, although I don't think that's the main problem.
(Don't argue this with me, it's just an opinion. :)

> And some
> extra outside effort into buildout would be nice.

Absolutely. I think the code needs a drastic simplification to enable
that.

> A good thing about github (or xxx or yyy) would be the ease of pull
> requests. And a pull request coupled with a visible bug report "scripts
> don't work" stands more chance of being included than a 2.5 year old simple
> fix in some branch with some old mailinglist messages.

Not sure about that.  I think the integrated review support would
definitely be accretive.

> And... I'd love a list of current maintainers of zc.buildout that are
> allowed to commit to trunk.

Um, any svn.zope.org committer is technically allowed.  I realize
that's not what you're asking, but ...

> iirc Jim only works on the python 3 port

Not intentionally. :)

> ("1.5.x
> is too hard to understand now")

Unfortunately, the Python 3 port (aka buildout2) was based in
trunk/1.5.  I don't understand it either. ;)

I spent a few hours yesterday poking at the 2 branch trying to find a
way to attack simplifying it.  My suspicion is that it would be easier
to start from 1.4, although that will require redoing the Python 3
port. <whimper>

As an aside, I'm wrapping up an OS project that I've been working on
for the past few months, so I'm ready to spend some focussed time on
buildout.

> and the 1.5.x trunk itself hasn't seen any
> development lately as far as I could see, despite people being stuck on
> 1.4.x. So... who's maintaining buildout right now?

Theoretically, I am, as are various helpers.  Thomas Lotze put in a
bunch of work last year trying to help me clean up the 2 branch.  I
appreciate his efforts, but it wasn't enough....

A little bit was done on the trunk (and ported to the 2 branch) in a
sprint last fall.

I would love to move to a more team-based approach.  I really don't
want to be in charge. I certainly don't want to be a blocker. OTOH,
someone will beed to protect simplicity, if we ever achieve it.

I think to make contributors more effective, we have to simplify the
code a lot.  (We also need better docs, but that's another issue.)

Here's a possible plan:

- Create a github repo from svn.

  Not sure the best apprach to this.  I was thinking of using svn2git
  to copy the zc.buildout svn project.

  Someone with git foo could help with this, although this wants to be
  soon. (Like nowish :)

- Create a new branch from 1.4.4.

  (Don't know the proper git terminilogy for this, as I don't know git
  yet. :)

- Remove support for multiple Python interpreters in a single
  buildout.

- Remove setuptools support (just use distribute).

- Think of ways to simplify the code, or more importantly, the tests.

  Maybe provide some test infrastructure to make setup and assertions
  easier.

At this point, I think it should be easier for people to contribute.

Then:

- Merge reinout-scripts :)

- Change some defaults (always unzip, prefer final, etc.)

- maybe rename the project to buildout, thus avoiding backward
  compatibility issues.

- Release buildout 0.1 (not zc.buildout).

- Port to 2&3 (one codebase as was done for the 2 branch).

- Release.

- Cherry pick changes since 1.4.4.

  This would, of course, include better interaction with system
  Pythons including:

  - Simple isolation from site customization (ala -S),

  - Better behavior when not isolated (recognize and don't override
    system-installed projects),

  - Better failure. When not isolated and something goes wrong give
    better error messages.

  - Work with virtualenv.

  This needs to be done more simply than what was done in
  1.5. (Again, FTR I appreciate the huge effort that went into 1.5.)
  I have some ideas for this.

  Releasing along the way.

- New hotness (and releases)!

- Somewhere along the line, when we think we aren't going to break
  things for a while, release 1.0.

Later

- Port to d2/p.

Thoughts? Anyone wanna help (take over :)? Wanna maybe sprint via IRC?

Jim

P.S. I'm happy to let someone else (preferably a team) be in charge,
     but I have no intention of washing by hands of buildout.

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Reinout van Rees
On 25-03-12 19:39, Jim Fulton wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Reinout van Rees<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Would it be an idea to move zc.buildout out of the zope svn repo into
>> github?
>
> Yes. In fact, I was just looking at that.  Github's review mechanism
> is particularly attractive.

Yep. Comment on entire pull requests, individual commits and individual
lines. Works well. (Only real github problem I found is lack of
attachments (=screenshots) in issues, but that's not something that
ought to bother buildout).

> I spent a few hours yesterday poking at the 2 branch trying to find a
> way to attack simplifying it.  My suspicion is that it would be easier
> to start from 1.4, although that will require redoing the Python 3
> port.<whimper>

Perhaps a different way is quicker/easier?

What I mean, if buildout is a big hairy complex wrapper around
setuptools, perhaps it is easier to build it upon/around/with something
else?

We know what buildout does and how it does it, so perhaps it is quicker
to make it use/wrap distutils2 or virtualenv/pip? Quicker instead of
trying to simplify the current code as such?

Buildout has some unique niceties like the recipes and a more
explicit/solid installation experience than you'd get with
virtualenv/pip. ("pip install something" ends up in your system, even
when "bin/pip install something" was what you meant).

But... is it technically possible to use/wrap virtualenv/pip and let
them worry about the upcoming setup.py-to-setup.cfg change, for instance?

> I would love to move to a more team-based approach.  I really don't
> want to be in charge. I certainly don't want to be a blocker. OTOH,
> someone will beed to protect simplicity, if we ever achieve it.

Well, you're the zope pope, so what about "buildout bishop"? :-)

> Here's a possible plan:
>
> - Create a github repo from svn.
>
>    Not sure the best apprach to this.  I was thinking of using svn2git
>    to copy the zc.buildout svn project.
>
>    Someone with git foo could help with this, although this wants to be
>    soon. (Like nowish :)

svn2git works fine. See
http://reinout.vanrees.org/weblog/2011/10/11/moving-svn-to-github.html
for some tips and common errors.

There are two organizational things that needs to be done:

- We need a mapping from zope svn usernames to email addresses (at least
for buildout committers). Otherwise all the commits aren't credited
(which would be a shame) as github identifies commits by email address.

- Where to put it on github? Is there a zope or zope corp or Jim account
that's the best place to put it?


> - Create a new branch from 1.4.4.
>
>    (Don't know the proper git terminilogy for this, as I don't know git
>    yet. :)

Budget some time for a week of screaming, after that git works fine.

> - Remove setuptools support (just use distribute).

Or distutils2? Or perhaps even pip? I don't know myself.

> Then:
>
> - Merge reinout-scripts :)

With some luck, after using distribute or whatever, the branch won't be
needed anymore :-)


(Regarding helping: I'll definitively monitor this mailinglist more
actively and jump in when possible. I'm however writing a Django book at
the moment, so I *do* have time constraints. Note that I've already put
a buildout chapter in my table of contents :-) )


Reinout

--
Reinout van Rees                    http://reinout.vanrees.org/
[hidden email]             http://www.nelen-schuurmans.nl/
"If you're not sure what to do, make something. -- Paul Graham"

_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Hanno Schlichting-4
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 10:12 PM, Reinout van Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
> - Where to put it on github? Is there a zope or zope corp or Jim account
> that's the best place to put it?

I'd suggest the creation of a separate buildout organization. Such a
place might over time also get a collection of various recipes,
zc.recipe.egg / zc.recipe.cmmi being prime examples.

There is a non-sanctioned https://github.com/zopefoundation which I
have control of. But as there's really nothing Zope specific about
buildout, I wouldn't want to continue associating it with Zope.

Hanno
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
In reply to this post by Reinout van Rees
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Reinout van Rees <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 25-03-12 19:39, Jim Fulton wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Reinout van Rees<[hidden email]>
>> wrote:

...

>> I spent a few hours yesterday poking at the 2 branch trying to find a
>> way to attack simplifying it. My suspicion is that it would be easier
>> to start from 1.4, although that will require redoing the Python 3
>> port.<whimper>
>
>
> Perhaps a different way is quicker/easier?
>
> What I mean, if buildout is a big hairy complex wrapper around setuptools,
> perhaps it is easier to build it upon/around/with something else?
>
> We know what buildout does and how it does it, so perhaps it is quicker to
> make it use/wrap distutils2

Distutils2 has lots of issues. It also lacks things that buildout
wants, like, um, eggs...  It will become more solid with time, and we
can work around it's limitations, but trying to rely on it now
wouldn't be a good way to make progress.

> or virtualenv/pip?

That's both the wrong level of abstraction and an impedence missmatch.

> Quicker instead of trying to
> simplify the current code as such?

I'm pretty hopeful that starting with 1.4 will be sane.

> Buildout has some unique niceties like the recipes and a more explicit/solid
> installation experience than you'd get with virtualenv/pip. ("pip install
> something" ends up in your system, even when "bin/pip install something" was
> what you meant).
>
> But... is it technically possible to use/wrap virtualenv/pip and let them
> worry about the upcoming setup.py-to-setup.cfg change, for instance?

I really don't think that's a good idea.

>
>> I would love to move to a more team-based approach. I really don't
>> want to be in charge. I certainly don't want to be a blocker. OTOH,
>> someone will beed to protect simplicity, if we ever achieve it.
>
>
> Well, you're the zope pope, so what about "buildout bishop"? :-)

Seriously, I think that model's broken.

What I meant above was that somebody (preferably somebodies) need to
protect simplicity.  I didn't mean to suggest that it had to be me.

>> Here's a possible plan:
>>
>> - Create a github repo from svn.
>>
>>  Not sure the best apprach to this. I was thinking of using svn2git
>>  to copy the zc.buildout svn project.
>>
>>  Someone with git foo could help with this, although this wants to be
>>  soon. (Like nowish :)
>
>
> svn2git works fine.

I just made it work on my mac. (An attempt on ubuntu failed for some
unknown reason <shrug>.)  I now have a local repo. :)

> See
> http://reinout.vanrees.org/weblog/2011/10/11/moving-svn-to-github.html
> for some tips and common errors.

ok...

>
> There are two organizational things that needs to be done:
>
> - We need a mapping from zope svn usernames to email addresses (at least for
> buildout committers). Otherwise all the commits aren't credited (which would
> be a shame) as github identifies commits by email address.

Yup, I didn't do that. I can do that I guess.  I'll have to chase down
the committers emails...

> - Where to put it on github? Is there a zope or zope corp or Jim account
> that's the best place to put it?

I have a personal account.

Hanno suggested creating a buildout organization.  I'm up with that.
Maybe someone can create one and include me. :)

>> - Merge reinout-scripts :)
>
>
> With some luck, after using distribute or whatever, the branch won't be
> needed anymore :-)

distribute is just a setuptools clone. The branch will still be needed.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Hanno Schlichting-4
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hanno suggested creating a buildout organization.  I'm up with that.
> Maybe someone can create one and include me. :)

In case you want it, there you go: https://github.com/buildout/buildout

Jim is a co-owner of the organization having admin access, the
developers team with pull/push rights is currently empty.

Hanno
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Matthew Brett
Hi,

On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hanno Schlichting <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hanno suggested creating a buildout organization.  I'm up with that.
>> Maybe someone can create one and include me. :)
>
> In case you want it, there you go: https://github.com/buildout/buildout
>
> Jim is a co-owner of the organization having admin access, the
> developers team with pull/push rights is currently empty.

I wrote a little sphinx project that is simple to drop in to your
sphinx docs to seed a github workflow:

https://github.com/matthew-brett/gitwash

http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash_build.html

Best,

Matthew
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Vincent Pelletier
In reply to this post by Jim Fulton
Le Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:39:22 -0400,
Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> a écrit :
> - Create a github repo from svn.
>
>   Not sure the best apprach to this.  I was thinking of using svn2git
>   to copy the zc.buildout svn project.
>
>   Someone with git foo could help with this, although this wants to be
>   soon. (Like nowish :)

FWIW, we (Nexedi) did it internally to include several fixes/changes we
need, one branch per fix + merge back to "master" branch (aka trunk in
svn terminology), all based on "upstream" branch (which is just
buildout's trunk).

http://git.erp5.org/gitweb/slapos.buildout.git

Each bug-fixing/feature-adding branch is named after the corresponding
launchpad bug number.

We didn't create branches nor tags corresponding to buildout releases
& branches, as far as I can see. We would be happy to help converting
the repository - and start hammering it with patches :) .

Regards,
--
Vincent Pelletier
ERP5 - open source ERP/CRM for flexible enterprises
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
In reply to this post by Hanno Schlichting-4
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Hanno Schlichting <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hanno suggested creating a buildout organization.  I'm up with that.
>> Maybe someone can create one and include me. :)
>
> In case you want it, there you go: https://github.com/buildout/buildout
>
> Jim is a co-owner of the organization having admin access, the
> developers team with pull/push rights is currently empty.

Thanks!

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
In reply to this post by Matthew Brett
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Matthew Brett <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Hanno Schlichting <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Jim Fulton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Hanno suggested creating a buildout organization.  I'm up with that.
>>> Maybe someone can create one and include me. :)
>>
>> In case you want it, there you go: https://github.com/buildout/buildout
>>
>> Jim is a co-owner of the organization having admin access, the
>> developers team with pull/push rights is currently empty.
>
> I wrote a little sphinx project that is simple to drop in to your
> sphinx docs to seed a github workflow:
>
> https://github.com/matthew-brett/gitwash
>
> http://matthew-brett.github.com/pydagogue/gitwash_build.html

Thanks, I'll check this out.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [buildout] branches languishing? (site-packages and distutils scripts)

Jim Fulton
In reply to this post by Vincent Pelletier
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 4:10 AM, Vincent Pelletier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Le Sun, 25 Mar 2012 13:39:22 -0400,
...
> We would be happy to help converting
> the repository -

Thanks.

So, I guess the first step is to gather git ids for past
contributors. :/ I can work on this.  I suppose then it's a matter of
running svn2git, which I've already done successfully once.

Question for everyone interested, do you think I should copy the whole
zc.buildout project, and thus its history?

Or would it be better to start a new project based on the 1.4 branch
(or 1.4.4 tag)? The later would be simpler, as I wouldn't have to
chase down (often non-existent) git ids for past contributors.

Does anyone have any objections to renaming the project "buildout"?
I expect that most existing recipes would work with the new
buildout.  Recipes that import zc.buildout (zc.buildout.easy_install)
would be broken.  Those recipes would be likely to be broken
by changes we'd make (like omissions of the new 1.5-based
APIs) anyway.

Jim

--
Jim Fulton
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jimfulton
_______________________________________________
Distutils-SIG maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
12