Differential D424

Rework branch names to align them with git origins
ClosedPublic
Actions

Authored by olasd on Sep 19 2018, 3:40 PM.

Details

Reviewers

ardumont

Commits

rDLDPY9d4a0f5e009d: Rework branch names to align them with git origins

Summary

This modification is two-fold:

For releases with a single sdist, generate a branch named refs/tags/<version>
For releases with multiple sdists, generate branches named refs/tags/<ver>/<filename>

Depends on D423

Test Plan

tests have been updated

Diff Detail

Repository

rDLDPY PyPI loader

Lint

Automatic diff as part of commit; lint not applicable.

Unit

Automatic diff as part of commit; unit tests not applicable.

Event Timeline

olasd created this revision.Sep 19 2018, 3:40 PM

Harbormaster completed remote builds in B1410: Diff 1311.Sep 19 2018, 3:40 PM

olasd added a child revision: D425: Provide a default_release endpoint on PyPIProjects.Sep 19 2018, 3:41 PM

zack added a subscriber: zack.Sep 19 2018, 3:47 PM

zack added inline comments.

swh/loader/pypi/loader.py
250	so, what is the rationale for doing this? I understand the desire of uniformity, but uniforming on what git does seem rather arbitrary and not necessarily future-proof. Git might change what it does in the future, and we will be stuck with a weird naming convention in the PyPI loader. Also, that is not what we do with, say, the Debian loader. I think we should use something close to the PyPI terminology. And I'm personally totally fine with the fact that to make sense of branch names one should know the logic of the loader (which we should document…). So, concrete proposal: 'release/%s/%s' % (release, filename) And thanks for the test!

Ok.

I guess that concludes the discussion in D409 then (mercurial tags representation in swh model ~> snapshot with an equivalent naming convention).

Shall we add a case to check the multiple sdist case (later sounds good to me).

This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Sep 19 2018, 3:50 PM

In D424#8216, @ardumont wrote:

I guess that concludes the discussion in D409 then (mercurial tags representation in swh model ~> snapshot with an equivalent naming convention).

Nope, it does not. Here we have already decided that we will not have release objects (for consistency with other archive/package loaders), there the jury is still out.

Closed by commit rDLDPY9d4a0f5e009d: Rework branch names to align them with git origins (authored by olasd). · Explain WhySep 19 2018, 3:57 PM

This revision was automatically updated to reflect the committed changes.

In D424#8227, @zack wrote:

In D424#8216, @ardumont wrote:

I guess that concludes the discussion in D409 then (mercurial tags representation in swh model ~> snapshot with an equivalent naming convention).

Nope, it does not. Here we have already decided that we will not have release objects (for consistency with other archive/package loaders), there the jury is still out.

Ah, quite right! Thanks.

ardumont added inline comments.Sep 19 2018, 4:18 PM

swh/loader/pypi/loader.py
250	... (which we should document…). The readme does [1] (well, not entering into details though). That will need improvments. https://forge.softwareheritage.org/source/swh-loader-pypi/browse/master/README.md