1257783 - mach-bootstrap: ask git user to clone hg.mozilla.org with git-cinnabar

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Firefox Build System :: General, defect)

Description

[Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo)]

I actually don't know how to be able to run ./mach WITHOUT cloning gecko, but if the user ended up need to do so after |./mach bootstrap| we should ask the user (if s/he chooses to use git) to clone from hg.mozilla.org instead of the gecko-dev mirror. It would help the user to get future stuff like MozReview up and running down the road.

:gps, do you agree? If so I would like to change the output message of |./mach bootstrap| and snap a new section and mention git-cinnabar and briefly mentioned the benefit.

Comment 1

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

Yes, we should prefer git-cinnabar over gecko-dev because of MozReview. However, cloning via git-cinnabar is a bit slow. I'd *really* like for us to host Git bundles containing all the cinnabar data so people can fetch them from a CDN and apply them without having to do the expensive conversion. I suppose that can be a follow-up.

Comment 2

[Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo)]

Attachment: MozReview Request: Bug 1257783 - mach-bootstrap: ask git user to clone hg.mozilla.org with git-cinnabar, r=gps

Review commit: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/41615/diff/#index_header
See other reviews: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/41615/

Comment 3

[Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo)]

Comment on attachment 8733173 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1257783 - mach-bootstrap: ask git user to clone hg.mozilla.org with git-cinnabar, r=gps

Review request updated; see interdiff: https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/41615/diff/1-2/

Comment 4

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

Comment on attachment 8733173 [details]
MozReview Request: Bug 1257783 - mach-bootstrap: ask git user to clone hg.mozilla.org with git-cinnabar, r=gps

https://reviewboard.mozilla.org/r/41615/#review38061

Looks good. Hopefully someday we can automate the installation of git-cinnabar.

Oh, and IIRC the bootstrapper assumes that if you choose Git that Mercurial isn't installed/upgraded. With cinnabar, we'll also want to ensure a modern Mercurial is present because cinnabar uses Mercurial under the hood. That would be a good follow-up.

Comment 5

[Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo)]

`./mach bootstrap` does not currently check git or git version at all, and it would always ensure Mercurial is installed and up-to-date. Could you be more specific on what follow-up to work on? Thanks!

(In reply to Gregory Szorc [:gps] from comment #4)
> Oh, and IIRC the bootstrapper assumes that if you choose Git that Mercurial
> isn't installed/upgraded. With cinnabar, we'll also want to ensure a modern
> Mercurial is present because cinnabar uses Mercurial under the hood. That
> would be a good follow-up.

Comment 6

[Trevor Saunders (:tbsaunde)]

(In reply to Gregory Szorc [:gps] from comment #1)
> Yes, we should prefer git-cinnabar over gecko-dev because of MozReview.
> However, cloning via git-cinnabar is a bit slow. I'd *really* like for us to
> host Git bundles containing all the cinnabar data so people can fetch them
> from a CDN and apply them without having to do the expensive conversion. I
> suppose that can be a follow-up.

We should be able to clone gecko-dev, and then just grapht cinnabar I would think.  aiui github has optimized there stuff such that cloning from them isn't really slower than downloading bundles.

Comment 7

[Pulsebot]

https://hg.mozilla.org/integration/mozilla-inbound/rev/70b79fe1858f

Comment 8

[Carsten Book [:Tomcat]]

https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/70b79fe1858f

Comment 9

[Gregory Szorc [:gps]]

(In reply to Tim Guan-tin Chien [:timdream] (please needinfo) from comment #5)
> `./mach bootstrap` does not currently check git or git version at all, and
> it would always ensure Mercurial is installed and up-to-date. Could you be
> more specific on what follow-up to work on? Thanks!
> 
> (In reply to Gregory Szorc [:gps] from comment #4)
> > Oh, and IIRC the bootstrapper assumes that if you choose Git that Mercurial
> > isn't installed/upgraded. With cinnabar, we'll also want to ensure a modern
> > Mercurial is present because cinnabar uses Mercurial under the hood. That
> > would be a good follow-up.

I thought there was an option when you ran bootstrap that asked if you prefer Mercurial or Git. I guess there isn't. Ignore my comment.