Mailman 3 Attention Bazaar mirror users - Python-Dev

newer
Re: [Python-Dev] Adding support to...

Attention Bazaar mirror users

Barry Warsaw

20 Feb 2009 20 Feb '09

7:09 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I've just upgraded the Bazaar mirrors on code.python.org to use bzr 1.12. We now have the opportunity to upgrade the repository format for better performance. Because of the bzr-svn requirement, we need a "rich root" format. Upgrading to 1.9-rich-root could buy us some significant performance improvements, but it will require all clients to upgrade to at least bzr 1.9, which was released on November 7, 2008. I would like to do this upgrade. If you are currently using the Bazaar mirrors at code.python.org and upgrading your client to at least bzr 1.9 would be a hardship, please contact me. If I don't hear any objections by say Tuesday, I'll go ahead and do the repo upgrades. Thanks, Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSZ7HwHEjvBPtnXfVAQIlxAQAk0ze8AHLY8aezrH35+Vv4tXloLy/FV1M GHF2QzLBaV45Hr4d3i8Os32eaSvhWyFbCGeBZtm3q3pOwPy9ST/tDdI0XBwjd0M1 FV1Pg3v97IYeI6Pa1HKz0sKxbygACiZ9iQWde3b85zXEhsaZfXo7RiendmMkYift Uvw0WWJZ1DU= =sCFZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Show replies by date

Barry Warsaw

20 Feb 20 Feb

1:21 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

I've just upgraded the Bazaar mirrors on code.python.org to use bzr 1.12. We now have the opportunity to upgrade the repository format for better performance. Because of the bzr-svn requirement, we need a "rich root" format. Upgrading to 1.9-rich-root could buy us some significant performance improvements, but it will require all clients to upgrade to at least bzr 1.9, which was released on November 7, 2008.

I would like to do this upgrade. If you are currently using the Bazaar mirrors at code.python.org and upgrading your client to at least bzr 1.9 would be a hardship, please contact me. If I don't hear any objections by say Tuesday, I'll go ahead and do the repo upgrades.

Adam Olsen reminds me that bzr 1.9 won't be supported by default in Ubuntu until Jaunty in April and Thomas reminds me that Debian still just has 1.5. In both those cases, you can use the PPA: https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa For Ubuntu machines, pick the distro version that's most appropriate. For Debian lenny, I use the Hardy PPA which seems to work fine. Gentoo gives me 1.12 and MacPorts gives me 1.11. I can't check any other distros. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSZ8ewnEjvBPtnXfVAQLTEgP+IF8j1UJNqOt1uZ8L5QO+63tcwFdJ3z0X k5ZJg3mJgMVdXMnYSgnO6fBC7R7/zVHFo++cNoitVk1++N+PqdPjGaZkD/4/Yu/I gnUuEnS6aTU9at9rhrLXc310Qs8N9JmKOn9LWie2gCMOyiW/E95mMpH95Ze2jNrR 97p+uBzxtlQ= =wdPZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Cournapeau

6:04 p.m.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

Adam Olsen reminds me that bzr 1.9 won't be supported by default in Ubuntu until Jaunty in April and Thomas reminds me that Debian still just has 1.5.

In both those cases, you can use the PPA:

https://launchpad.net/~bzr/+archive/ppa

Please note that for many people in a corporate/university environment, this is not an option. Granted, you can install it by yourself at this point, David

Stephen J. Turnbull

10:52 p.m.

David Cournapeau writes:

...

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

...
In both those cases, you can use the PPA:

...

Please note that for many people in a corporate/university environment, this is not an option. Granted, you can install it by yourself at this point,

Er, what are people without access to PPAs doing building Python from a VCS checkout? Surely this is not a problem.

David Cournapeau

11:37 p.m.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 3:52 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

...

David Cournapeau writes:

...
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...
...
In both those cases, you can use the PPA:

...
Please note that for many people in a corporate/university environment, this is not an option. Granted, you can install it by yourself at this point,

Er, what are people without access to PPAs doing building Python from a VCS checkout?

I don't see the link between access to PPA and building Python from sources. I don't have administration privileges on any of my machine at work. Adding PPA is simply not allowed at some places (PPA or anything else which is not considered 'safe'), or too much of a (bureaucratic) burden. cheers, David

Stephen J. Turnbull

21 Feb 21 Feb

1:05 a.m.

David Cournapeau writes:

...

...
Er, what are people without access to PPAs doing building Python from a VCS checkout?

I don't see the link between access to PPA and building Python from sources.

I didn't say "from source", I said "from a VCS checkout". If using a *specific* recent official release of a core tool is bureaucratically infeasible, it would IMO be very unusual if you're allowed to checkout and build arbitrary versions of Python, rather than using a version provided by your bureaucrats. The number of people whose job is *specifically* developing Python, or developing code that depends on bleeding-edge Python, in such an environment is surely very small.

"Martin v. Löwis"

1:57 a.m.

...

I didn't say "from source", I said "from a VCS checkout". If using a *specific* recent official release of a core tool is bureaucratically infeasible, it would IMO be very unusual if you're allowed to checkout and build arbitrary versions of Python, rather than using a version provided by your bureaucrats.

The number of people whose job is *specifically* developing Python, or developing code that depends on bleeding-edge Python, in such an environment is surely very small.

This completely contradicts with my experience. In a university environment, students regularly check out software from the source repository, modify it, and build it, just to learn something by doing so. Yet, in such an environment, they have little control over their systems - they cannot install software themselves, but have to ask the university bureaucrats (which often reject such wishes, unless they come from a teacher - and often even in that case). There is no problem with people building their own versions of Python, though - they do so in their home directories, and OS security mechanisms prevent them from doing harm to other users. Regards, Martin

Stephen J. Turnbull

4:15 a.m.

"Martin v. Löwis" writes:

...

sjt sez:

...

...
I didn't say "from source", I said "from a VCS checkout". If using a *specific* recent official release of a core tool is bureaucratically infeasible, it would IMO be very unusual if you're allowed to checkout and build arbitrary versions of Python, rather than using a version provided by your bureaucrats.

The number of people whose job is *specifically* developing Python, or developing code that depends on bleeding-edge Python, in such an environment is surely very small.

...

This completely contradicts with my experience. In a university environment, students regularly check out software from the source repository, modify it, and build it, just to learn something by doing so.

You're ignoring the second paragraph quoted above. I'm *not* denying that such environments are common. The question is "Do developers *restricted to such environments* really have an impact on Python development to outweigh the real cost of standardizing on an older implementation of Bazaar to developers who would be able to use a more capable version?" I find it hard to believe that it would be so; Bazaar performance on a lot of measures was pretty poor in v1.5. I also find it hard to believe that there are very many serious developers who only have access to a school lab or who are misusing corporate resources to develop Python.[1] Nor does this problem exist with Mercurial or git; both of those have more than adequate performance for basic operations with whatever- version-is-in-Debian-lenny (git 1.5.6 and Mercurial 1.0.1). So I don't see much harm to come from letting Bazaar at least put forward its nice shiny new shoes. Unless the Barry feels that that would be a risk to Bazaar's acceptability in the end. He apparently doesn't think so, though; rather that the improved performance and capabilities of recent bzr will make it more attractive to the great majority of Python developers than an older (more "democratic") bzr would be. Besides, if Barry makes this experiment *now* and enough people speak up that it will make it difficult for them to contribute to Python, the Bazaar proponents can revert to an older version of Bazaar before a final decision is made. Footnotes: [1] If it's their job to do so, and Python requires 1.12 to check out and push to the official sources, won't their bosses push to get the 1.12 PPA approved? I would estimate at least 6 months lead time before the SVN repo is decommissioned, maybe longer if it's maintained as a mirror for a while. That should be enough time to get *that specific revision* (*not* arbitrary installations!) approved.

Paul Moore

5:11 a.m.

2009/2/21 Stephen J. Turnbull :

...

Besides, if Barry makes this experiment *now* and enough people speak up that it will make it difficult for them to contribute to Python, the Bazaar proponents can revert to an older version of Bazaar before a final decision is made.

In addition, I think it's an interesting experiment in its own right - are the actions required to allow Bazaar to provide comparable performance to the other contenders, acceptable to the Python development community? Paul

"Martin v. Löwis"

9:17 a.m.

...

You're ignoring the second paragraph quoted above. I'm *not* denying that such environments are common. The question is "Do developers *restricted to such environments* really have an impact on Python development to outweigh the real cost of standardizing on an older implementation of Bazaar to developers who would be able to use a more capable version?"

But that's not the question at hand. The question at hand was whether any of the current users of the Bazaar copy of Python would suffer. This setup was specifically arranged for developers who have no immediate impact on Python development, so ignoring the primary target group of the setup when discussing changes to is is, well, counter-productive.

...

Unless the Barry feels that that would be a risk to Bazaar's acceptability in the end.

Whether it is depends on when a DVCS gets selected. If it gets selected after lenny+1 has been released, I see no problem with requiring version 1.12 (or whatever lenny+1 will then ship with).

...

Besides, if Barry makes this experiment *now* and enough people speak up that it will make it difficult for them to contribute to Python, the Bazaar proponents can revert to an older version of Bazaar before a final decision is made.

I agree. Going back might require a reconversion of the subversion repository, but that might be necessary regardless. Regards, Martin

Stephen J. Turnbull

11:20 a.m.

"Martin v. Löwis" writes:

...

so ignoring the primary target group of the setup when discussing changes to is is, well, counter-productive.

I'm *not* ignoring them; I'm stating a strong belief that the great majority of them will not be adversely affected by this change. Since almost by definition they're not likely to speak up very much, I'm happy to hear arguments from a qualified observer (such as yourself) on their behalf. But 10,000 students who use a VCS for a school project don't matter. The question is, how many of them would work on bleeding edge Python? Those who won't can't suffer from this change! On the other hand, every Bazaar-using developer who has a copy of bzr

...

= 1.9 is *already* suffering.

...

...
Unless the Barry feels that that would be a risk to Bazaar's acceptability in the end.

Whether it is depends on when a DVCS gets selected. If it gets selected after lenny+1 has been released, I see no problem with requiring version 1.12 (or whatever lenny+1 will then ship with).

I really hope we won't have to wait that long!

"Martin v. Löwis"

11:47 a.m.

...

I'm *not* ignoring them; I'm stating a strong belief that the great majority of them will not be adversely affected by this change. Since almost by definition they're not likely to speak up very much, I'm happy to hear arguments from a qualified observer (such as yourself) on their behalf. But 10,000 students who use a VCS for a school project don't matter. The question is, how many of them would work on bleeding edge Python? Those who won't can't suffer from this change!

...

From my experience, students trying to hack open source software *always* take the public source repository (if available). Downloading the latest source release doesn't cross their mind. I'm not talking about regular school projects. I talk about Joe Random CS student who wants to do some fun project in his spare time.

By using the DVCS, they can trust that they will be able to track changes - IIUC, that is supposedly the *major* advantage. Of course, many of them also have personal laptops these days on which they do stuff, at least here in Germany, where they can install whatever it takes. Regards, Martin

Antoine Pitrou

11:47 a.m.

Stephen J. Turnbull writes:

...

...
Whether it is depends on when a DVCS gets selected. If it gets selected after lenny+1 has been released, I see no problem with requiring version 1.12 (or whatever lenny+1 will then ship with).

I really hope we won't have to wait that long!

There are other DVCSes out there, you don't have to "wait" :)

Barry Warsaw

12:30 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 21, 2009, at 7:15 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

...

Besides, if Barry makes this experiment *now* and enough people speak up that it will make it difficult for them to contribute to Python, the Bazaar proponents can revert to an older version of Bazaar before a final decision is made.

I'm going to resist the temptation to respond to every message in this thread, but really the point was to put forward the best experience with the current experiment. I actually didn't think there were more than a handful of people using the current mirrors and I didn't expect any of them to have a real problem with requiring bzr 1.9. I mean, it can be built and run completely from your own directory if need be. Bazaar is Just Python (well, and a little optional Pyrex). I'm going to resist the temptation to discuss moving beyond the current experimental mirror or the final PEP 374 decision. The latter awaits Brett's analysis and no doubt length and passionate debate here. My own personal prediction is that even if a decision is made soon after Pycon (Brett has said it won't happen before), actual deployment is months away at best. I think no matter what DVCS gets chosen, there will be lots of operational details to be worked out about actually self-hosting those branches to the greatest benefit of Python developers, both core and non-core. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaBkZXEjvBPtnXfVAQI4egQAgDgOsVY4xnW34xWCOYZOPUtkzIg/SezM hc8F4VEA2d8s3E7b9Atn4uRBm6ouI57PvIXSOkSUczXAm13yBGazGeQgTo6+VRzq lVIc4VzZU48jn4sUWESjfH0ewZEbnojUCrLtPa5mE4BWtfor3XlYNl6DjBQRh73V 4T6BAhg8rIc= =p3rb -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven

12:35 p.m.

-On [20090221 21:30], Barry Warsaw (barry@python.org) wrote:

...

I think no matter what DVCS gets chosen

Isn't that getting ahead of the game? I thought that the choice whether or not a DVCS gets chosen is part of that PEP? -- Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven / asmodai イェルーンラウフロックヴァンデルウェルヴェン http://www.in-nomine.org/ | http://www.rangaku.org/ | GPG: 2EAC625B Earth to earth, ashes to ashes, dust to dust...

Barry Warsaw

12:38 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 21, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven wrote:

...

-On [20090221 21:30], Barry Warsaw (barry@python.org) wrote:

...
I think no matter what DVCS gets chosen

Isn't that getting ahead of the game? I thought that the choice whether or not a DVCS gets chosen is part of that PEP?

It is. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaBmLHEjvBPtnXfVAQJ2lAP+MFbyWa0j3ups4LFiyyLMMZ3jUKsaynFr v7CzOMnZQ4QRQoMyM9wlpQKha0VUUdr3dqS/w6O6fRzIT0ROzj/7I1glsW+4Yh5f ho1vCp41wZ+zUxjDTchho+4Qjo999w9l5rtn6N/5i2WM/0sut9xLKHEGO+EbJtEN in+wNbIDuYY= =Gz+m -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

David Cournapeau

7:20 p.m.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 9:15 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

...

"Martin v. Löwis" writes:

...
sjt sez:

...
...
I didn't say "from source", I said "from a VCS checkout". If using a *specific* recent official release of a core tool is bureaucratically infeasible, it would IMO be very unusual if you're allowed to checkout and build arbitrary versions of Python, rather than using a version provided by your bureaucrats.

The number of people whose job is *specifically* developing Python, or developing code that depends on bleeding-edge Python, in such an environment is surely very small.

...
This completely contradicts with my experience. In a university environment, students regularly check out software from the source repository, modify it, and build it, just to learn something by doing so.

You're ignoring the second paragraph quoted above. I'm *not* denying that such environments are common. The question is "Do developers *restricted to such environments* really have an impact on Python development to outweigh the real cost of standardizing on an older implementation of Bazaar to developers who would be able to use a more capable version?"

That was not the original question. I was just meaning to say that not being able to install from PPA is not hypothetical, in some of my work environments, not that it would be significant for the python future :) David

Tres Seaver

9:45 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

...
I didn't say "from source", I said "from a VCS checkout". If using a *specific* recent official release of a core tool is bureaucratically infeasible, it would IMO be very unusual if you're allowed to checkout and build arbitrary versions of Python, rather than using a version provided by your bureaucrats.

The number of people whose job is *specifically* developing Python, or developing code that depends on bleeding-edge Python, in such an environment is surely very small.

This completely contradicts with my experience. In a university environment, students regularly check out software from the source repository, modify it, and build it, just to learn something by doing so. Yet, in such an environment, they have little control over their systems - they cannot install software themselves, but have to ask the university bureaucrats (which often reject such wishes, unless they come from a teacher - and often even in that case).

There is no problem with people building their own versions of Python, though - they do so in their home directories, and OS security mechanisms prevent them from doing harm to other users.

Wouldn't such hypothetical core Python developers be able to build and run their own local copy of bzr, using that self-compiled Python? Let's not strain at gnats and swallow camels here. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoD2c+gerLs4ltQ4RAjglAJ9fgoSD0g9jJm8Kw/Z2PBvyXKYIWQCeL+Xa lybDHEZyjZxG21inSFsn1W0= =d02o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Martin v. Löwis"

10:03 a.m.

...

Wouldn't such hypothetical core Python developers be able to build and run their own local copy of bzr, using that self-compiled Python?

It has been hypothetical for a while, but it never was about core developers. Regards, Martin

Paul Moore

1:11 p.m.

2009/2/21 "Martin v. Löwis" :

...

...
Wouldn't such hypothetical core Python developers be able to build and run their own local copy of bzr, using that self-compiled Python?

It has been hypothetical for a while, but it never was about core developers.

Given that it *is* all hypothetical by now, if someone is interested in hacking on Python, why should they have to build their own copy of the DVCS to do so? Paul. PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running). I've not heard of this type of discussion around Git (but my experience is limited). But Bazaar seems very prone to this "upgrade the server and the clients need to be upgraded too" cycle.

Steven Bethard

1:36 p.m.

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...

PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running).

I've definitely had an SVN server tell me that I needed to upgrade my client to 1.5. Steve -- I'm not *in*-sane. Indeed, I am so far *out* of sane that you appear a tiny blip on the distant coast of sanity. --- Bucky Katt, Get Fuzzy

Steve Holden

5:56 p.m.

Steven Bethard wrote:

...

On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running).

I've definitely had an SVN server tell me that I needed to upgrade my client to 1.5.

Interestingly, I've had 1.4 servers tell me I shouldn't have upgraded my client to 1.5, which is a little tedious = particularly as the information comes in the form of a hard-to-decipher error message and a refusal to work. So much for backward compatibility. Fortunately I still had the SVN 1.4 client on the Ubuntu machine that was hosting the Samba shares, so I could use ssh and the command line to maintain things. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

Michael Foord

22 Feb 22 Feb

3:46 a.m.

Steve Holden wrote:

...

Steven Bethard wrote:

...
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running).

I've definitely had an SVN server tell me that I needed to upgrade my client to 1.5.

Interestingly, I've had 1.4 servers tell me I shouldn't have upgraded my client to 1.5, which is a little tedious = particularly as the information comes in the form of a hard-to-decipher error message and a refusal to work. So much for backward compatibility.

Hmm... I've been using 1.5 clients with 1.4 and earlier servers for quite a while now. My guess is that you deciphered the error message wrong! A working copy created by a 1.5 client can only be manipulated by a 1.5 client (I sometimes have several clients on windows boxen) but work fine with earlier servers in my experience. Michael

...

Fortunately I still had the SVN 1.4 client on the Ubuntu machine that was hosting the Samba shares, so I could use ssh and the command line to maintain things.

regards Steve

-- http://www.ironpythoninaction.com/ http://www.voidspace.org.uk/blog

Steve Holden

5:37 a.m.

Michael Foord wrote:

...

Steve Holden wrote:

...
Steven Bethard wrote:

...
On Sat, Feb 21, 2009 at 1:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running).

I've definitely had an SVN server tell me that I needed to upgrade my client to 1.5.

Interestingly, I've had 1.4 servers tell me I shouldn't have upgraded my client to 1.5, which is a little tedious = particularly as the information comes in the form of a hard-to-decipher error message and a refusal to work. So much for backward compatibility.

Hmm... I've been using 1.5 clients with 1.4 and earlier servers for quite a while now. My guess is that you deciphered the error message wrong!

A working copy created by a 1.5 client can only be manipulated by a 1.5 client (I sometimes have several clients on windows boxen) but work fine with earlier servers in my experience.

You are correct. In fact I got over the issue by using the 1.4 client from Cygwin. regards Steve -- Steve Holden +1 571 484 6266 +1 800 494 3119 Holden Web LLC http://www.holdenweb.com/

Barry Warsaw

21 Feb 21 Feb

2:39 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...

PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running). I've not heard of this type of discussion around Git (but my experience is limited). But Bazaar seems very prone to this "upgrade the server and the clients need to be upgraded too" cycle.

That's not what we're talking about. This is a case of older clients not understanding a newer repository format. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaCCu3EjvBPtnXfVAQIafgP/VVxkAWhvpyagtYudwWXMTq0ErDZ+GoH4 JvwWHZqpp3/DlMwhXLptNrctaPQtdja5dGilSkVokv75OVYj8MZPiofa7peB2kGG Bi6pdN9ikf3sMU2PNnw3cCHAesdrSWkCAfjYO+AnXH/jn2PY6NdLLGenOvIOKlUu 66xGyep1bT4= =DR0/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Paul Moore

3:06 p.m.

2009/2/21 Barry Warsaw :

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running). I've not heard of this type of discussion around Git (but my experience is limited). But Bazaar seems very prone to this "upgrade the server and the clients need to be upgraded too" cycle.

That's not what we're talking about. This is a case of older clients not understanding a newer repository format.

Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't that what I said? Clients (who still use the - older - version they have at the moment) needing to upgrade to be able to interact with the public repository (server) if that repository is upgraded to a newer version? When you say "repository" and I say "server", are we not discussing the same thing (the Bazaar branches hosted at code.python.org)? Paul.

Tres Seaver

5:13 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Moore wrote:

...

2009/2/21 Barry Warsaw :

...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:11 PM, Paul Moore wrote:

...
PS Just for my own information, am I correct in thinking that it is *only* Bazaar in the (D)VCS world that has this problem, to any real extent? I know old Mercurial clients can interact with newer servers (ie, the wire protocol hasn't changed), I'm fairly sure that older Subversion clients can talk to newer servers (at least, I've never cared what client version I'm running). I've not heard of this type of discussion around Git (but my experience is limited). But Bazaar seems very prone to this "upgrade the server and the clients need to be upgraded too" cycle. That's not what we're talking about. This is a case of older clients not understanding a newer repository format.

Sorry, I'm confused. Isn't that what I said? Clients (who still use the - older - version they have at the moment) needing to upgrade to be able to interact with the public repository (server) if that repository is upgraded to a newer version? When you say "repository" and I say "server", are we not discussing the same thing (the Bazaar branches hosted at code.python.org)?

This has been true for a number of cases over the years: whether the "repostiory format", or the wire protocol, sometimes changes which materially *improve* the user's experience may require upgrading the client on the user's machine. In the case of SVN, upgrading to 1.5 gets vastly better merging support; in the case ob bzr, the win is performance when working against a large tree. Given that all the DVCS support is experimental at this point, nobody is being *blocked* from hacking on the Python core by Barry's proposed chnage. He was trying to find out if *real* users of the bzr tree would be hurt by the repository format upgrade, rather than hypothetical ones. AFAICS, no real user (one already using bzr to work with the Python tree) has objected. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFJoKaz+gerLs4ltQ4RAg4XAJ9zP0HU0S8xeaHsThxJ9/MJgpbztQCeINLH ar5pu9gP3tXdgHtOf3HGyWU= =4XLm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

"Martin v. Löwis"

7:56 p.m.

...

This has been true for a number of cases over the years: whether the "repostiory format", or the wire protocol, sometimes changes which materially *improve* the user's experience may require upgrading the client on the user's machine. In the case of SVN, upgrading to 1.5 gets vastly better merging support; in the case ob bzr, the win is performance when working against a large tree.

The question is whether upgrades on the server force upgrades on the clients. For subversion, this is not the case: Older clients continue to work correctly with 1.5 servers - they just can't use the merge functionality. IIUC, for bzr, this is different: if the repository format is upgraded, older clients will fail to do anything, not even a regular checkout.

...

AFAICS, no real user (one already using bzr to work with the Python tree) has objected.

Apparently not (assuming David Cournapeau does not actually use bzr) Regards, Martin

Barry Warsaw

12:32 p.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 21, 2009, at 4:57 AM, Martin v. Löwis wrote:

...

There is no problem with people building their own versions of Python, though - they do so in their home directories, and OS security mechanisms prevent them from doing harm to other users.

As should be the case with Bazaar and I assume Mercurial or Git. I just offered up the PPA for folks like me who are root but lazy. :) Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaBk33EjvBPtnXfVAQI4sgP+LST/04wpPdckq++BLt5rpeCNfFomu+Zi ea/wWcVvaEOe5qX+wBuzV7+hfHpJdf5mjX6o876G2CR3ES9T4wMIZj8NJXpa6fLV /fioiIgT9/cp5sdtuFtMkN+QPrTYqSkOwoeyEuP1pmxEQLUfMxcb43ipOt/fNRzk 1FVf/g5I5/w= =Ft/Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Barry Warsaw

25 Feb 25 Feb

6:23 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 20, 2009, at 10:09 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

I've just upgraded the Bazaar mirrors on code.python.org to use bzr 1.12. We now have the opportunity to upgrade the repository format for better performance. Because of the bzr-svn requirement, we need a "rich root" format. Upgrading to 1.9-rich-root could buy us some significant performance improvements, but it will require all clients to upgrade to at least bzr 1.9, which was released on November 7, 2008.

I would like to do this upgrade. If you are currently using the Bazaar mirrors at code.python.org and upgrading your client to at least bzr 1.9 would be a hardship, please contact me. If I don't hear any objections by say Tuesday, I'll go ahead and do the repo upgrades.

This is now done. Please let me know if you have any problems with the mirrors. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaVUenEjvBPtnXfVAQLdZgP/XTSdEm7vos5hFugguEJ+T6hIuchgM8j8 YDCdC4IMH4J1SsSjOLNUOnlWA5miMpRJSriSeUvNhKgzJZBoNGo+wWpTRzItYtxR 6+iQAqgAGvvJMc2bIlgbnI9z/izyUw6PyxpE7FLLEnMOMWEbvFxBHWg1ndww804b iz2sfrWZQpo= =k3jC -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Scott David Daniels

10:09 a.m.

Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

...
I've just upgraded the Bazaar mirrors on code.python.org to use bzr 1.12. We now have the opportunity to upgrade the repository format for better performance. Because of the bzr-svn requirement, we need a "rich root" format. Upgrading to 1.9-rich-root could buy us some significant performance improvements, but it will require all clients to upgrade to at least bzr 1.9, which was released on November 7, 2008.

I would like to do this upgrade. If you are currently using the Bazaar mirrors at code.python.org and upgrading your client to at least bzr 1.9 would be a hardship, please contact me. If I don't hear any objections by say Tuesday, I'll go ahead and do the repo upgrades.

This is now done. Please let me know if you have any problems with the mirrors.

I'd suggest updating the text at http://www.python.org/dev/bazaar/ In particular: What do I need? * Bazaar 1.0 or newer. As of this writing (04-Nov-2008) Bazaar 1.8 is the most recent release. As Bazaar is written in Python (yay!), it is available for all major platforms, See the Bazaar home page for information about versions for your platform. --Scott David Daniels Scott.Daniels@Acm.Org

Mark Dickinson

11:03 a.m.

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

This is now done. Please let me know if you have any problems with the mirrors.

Is the cron job that's supposed to update the bzr repository still running? I'm getting 'No revisions to pull' when I do 'bzr pull' for the py3k branch: Macintosh-3:py3k dickinsm$ bzr pull Using saved parent location: http://code.python.org/python/py3k/ No revisions to pull. ...which is a bit surprising, since my last 'bzr pull' was a while ago. Do I need to update something somewhere? I'm using bzr version 1.11 from macports. Mark

Barry Warsaw

11:05 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...
This is now done. Please let me know if you have any problems with the mirrors.

Is the cron job that's supposed to update the bzr repository still running?

No. It was running on Thomas's machine but we just realized that it was broken. I'm working on moving the cronjob over to code.python.org. Stay tuned. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSaWWeHEjvBPtnXfVAQLnPwP+OYls3161N9182B6ID9CmzsP5ynNxlcEv YhY70l0XVtEnIf1TEaXbSizPH7qHeVfWBzA2RnLYPATQllL0OkyqfNqM+gwlGYL5 GPmeo4Ue+Cls5vqvDRbrLW/y0QOOopYooVj/H0p1PsMy8ka3rlNJ7T2cpVMq00wq /VUhXWVSDUM= =06jz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Barry Warsaw

27 Feb 27 Feb

11:26 a.m.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote:

...

On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...
This is now done. Please let me know if you have any problems with the mirrors.

Is the cron job that's supposed to update the bzr repository still running? I'm getting 'No revisions to pull' when I do 'bzr pull' for the py3k branch:

Macintosh-3:py3k dickinsm$ bzr pull Using saved parent location: http://code.python.org/python/py3k/ No revisions to pull.

...which is a bit surprising, since my last 'bzr pull' was a while ago. Do I need to update something somewhere?

I'm using bzr version 1.11 from macports.

I think I have this fixed now. The branch updater is running on dinsdale now, but I'm currently staggering it, so that every 5 minutes the 2.5, 2.6, trunk, py3k and 3.0 branches get updated in a round-robin. Please let me know if you have any problems. Barry -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iQCVAwUBSag+XnEjvBPtnXfVAQKvXQQAksvzqrpWozugl0k1DRuRs9f+QZzcJCK9 gzC+6rCdLdOxQy4AOXip+qmQcL5+EGM7hxjo/0sSSEVswZY69tTgmcuFP1BPmg5e D+7FRfF0cFA2y2TG527fQxZMch3TnkVahe3owVdQa19zwRDjwx4ivB4xOwgXamWn MEmXG0u7ye4= =l2T9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Mark Dickinson

11:51 a.m.

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:

...

...
Is the cron job that's supposed to update the bzr repository still running? I think I have this fixed now. The branch updater is running on dinsdale now, but I'm currently staggering it, so that every 5 minutes the 2.5, 2.6,

On Feb 25, 2009, at 2:03 PM, Mark Dickinson wrote: trunk, py3k and 3.0 branches get updated in a round-robin.

Seems to be working for me. Thanks! Mark

5534

Age (days ago)

5541

Last active (days ago)

List overview

Download

34 comments

13 participants

participants (13)

"Martin v. Löwis"
Antoine Pitrou
Barry Warsaw
David Cournapeau
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
Mark Dickinson
Michael Foord
Paul Moore
Scott David Daniels
Stephen J. Turnbull
Steve Holden
Steven Bethard
Tres Seaver

Attention Bazaar mirror users

tags

participants (13)