Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Gentoo: Dev

Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All Gentoo dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


alexxy at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 10:35 AM

Post #26 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

Rich Freeman писал 2012-05-23 20:32:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy [at] gentoo>
> wrote:
>>
>> That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone  if and only if
>> original
>> repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after
>> shallow
>> clone point respectively
>>
>
> Is that going to be a practical condition to maintain?
>
> And how big will the repository actually be? Are we talking a GB or
> two, or something orders of magnitude larger?
>
> Rich


Full clone will be about 1G or so but no more then 2. If we will drop
changelog it will be much smaller

--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum [at] gmail
mailto:alexxy [at] gentoo
mailto:alexxy [at] omrb


robbat2 at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 10:38 AM

Post #27 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy [at] gentoo> wrote:
> >
> > That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if original
> > repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after shallow
> > clone point respectively
> Is that going to be a practical condition to maintain?
We're going to have lots of branches and merges.

> And how big will the repository actually be? Are we talking a GB or
> two, or something orders of magnitude larger?
In terms of repo size, we were going to be slicing the history into two
parts:
- fresh start
- historical

The 'fresh start' is what new commits will go on top of, and ranges
40-120MB depending on what git window compression is used.
The historical is ~1.2GB, and if you want a continuous history, you just
use graft to merge the two.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2 [at] gentoo
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85


chithanh at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 10:38 AM

Post #28 of 163 (330 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

Alexey Shvetsov schrieb:
>> Shallow clones are also read-only last I checked.
>
> That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone if and only if
> original repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and
> after shallow clone point respectively

There can also be breakage when someone reverts a commit that it is not
part of your shallow clone's history, and then you pull.


Best regards,
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn


rafaelmartins at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 11:37 AM

Post #29 of 163 (327 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

-1


--
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/


ford_prefect at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 12:37 PM

Post #30 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.
--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)


nirbheek at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 12:40 PM

Post #31 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.
>

+1

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team


lxnay at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 12:47 PM

Post #32 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.

The difference is that while Git is much faster, comes with a very low
WTF/secs rate and really forces you to do things the right way, other
L*********e software is not and I agree with you on this.

my 0.02c ;-)

> --
> Arun Raghavan
> http://arunraghavan.net/
> (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
>



--
Fabio Erculiani


hasufell at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 12:51 PM

Post #33 of 163 (332 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

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

+1 for git

I am more used to it, I find it easier to use regarding the utilities
as well as the gui and it is more consistent.
The fact alone that I can update a single directory in CVS without
updating all others can cause breakage, cause repoman checks may be
erroneous.


On 05/23/2012 09:37 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
> systems and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather,
> and it's good enough for you.

This sounds rather emotional to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvT/OAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzgPIH/38QflM4GNiUNo3bC5/8tock
FM03JE1Iln4ThvLl25opwGiO5R8akoD3koroUVPLoWV//QfYmcQIm7k7dJJCk4+m
WSQ6H21fL9v2m6QX7PuJwaENFSFBxu3UFy6BE+39iFJAPBiigH1hbE0rad/twYdr
xhnHZti1rGbaFBeXxlGmdhJYi7dtndyuZgTu0oQFfE0+sAAK2GPe5CGLoOFHdtxS
WCMY3C3cB0R7XPoJwUvvt2KmIEXNWfq6rDW3o6so89VdRSNykwMLdK1eZ+MZidIE
61CAJiuIsT4cKX5pbqo72GtU4tUOkQ6jjaJhofAcrSMYKA0IsxYvFAYnKqO4lh4=
=cdBk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


elezegarcia at gmail

May 23, 2012, 1:00 PM

Post #34 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.


Perhaps it would be instructive if you could tell us one advantage of
cvs over git.

(This is me exposing me to your terrible dev-flames, I was feeling too cold ;)


alexxy at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:05 PM

Post #35 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

Arun Raghavan писал 2012-05-23 22:37:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
> systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.

CVS is damn slow. On every cvs up it should stat *all* files and cvs
entryes
in current state its ~212k files in gentoo-x86. It will be sloow on
every machine unless you put all this files in ram

Actual number of usefull files is only about ~60k
(ebuilds,eclasses,metadata.xml,patches)

Its comparable to linux kernel git tree ~42k files

And yes git is much more faster.

PS if ibm s/360 was good for my grandfather why we all use modern
intel pc? Lets stay under 1 MIPS machines like s/360


--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum [at] gmail
mailto:alexxy [at] gentoo
mailto:alexxy [at] omrb


williamh at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:25 PM

Post #36 of 163 (327 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.

I hope this is sarcasm or a joke?

William


rich0 at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:32 PM

Post #37 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Ezequiel Garcia <elezegarcia [at] gmail> wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
>> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
>> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
>> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
>> good enough for you.
>
> Perhaps it would be instructive if you could tell us one advantage of
> cvs over git.
>

Sure. The slow commit rate encourages careful deliberation before
hitting the enter key, which therefore improves quality.

Then, if you do make a mistake the slow commit rate means that fixing
that mistake can take a long time, which increases the amount of pain
our end-users run into due to the mistake, which leads to lots of
flame wars on -dev. That means that the guy who made the mistake is
subjected to more public ridicule, and is less likely to do it again,
That improves quality too.

Since cvs doesn't tie together tree-wide changes in a nice way or
allow them to be transactionally completed, individual package
maintainers don't need to be as concerned with the big picture view.
Now as the maintainer of libfoo the fact that somebody changed my
ebuild without making a corresponding change in some profile is
completely hidden from me, and I can go to sleep peacefully without
realizing that my users are all going to have horribly broken systems
in the morning. Blissful ignorance of end-user suffering improves
developer morale, and helps get rid of pesky users at the same time.

cvs also makes more more aware of what is going on around me. Anytime
I want to work on something in parallel with the main development
branch I get to manually merge changes in, which keeps me aware of my
place in the world. That means that I'm less likely to build nice new
features, which means fewer bugs, which improves quality, and may even
drive away users as an added bonus!

See, cvs is really the wave of the future!

Rich


xmw at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:34 PM

Post #38 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/23/2012 06:58 PM, Justin wrote:
> Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git?
No, just to decide if git-cvsserver (providing cvs access) should be
part of an "git master tree" szenario.

In bugzie: Should https://bugs.gentoo.org/333699 stay a blocker of
https://bugs.gentoo.org/333531.

No flame about "git over cvs" in general, whether or not sparse
checkouts (i.e. w/o kde-*,gnome-* categories) make sense.

Michael
- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+9SfMACgkQknrdDGLu8JCGtQEAiS3Wcsll94w2rqlMP2WpSypU
fLdxa2wjstJ5Y/2iXCcA+wX/p+OwBzjLAxiwKnSl98XlLSIT/Qsxm5H1TvEEJ71w
=k8j9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


mgorny at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:37 PM

Post #39 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:25:54 -0500
William Hubbs <williamh [at] gentoo> wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> > Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
> > systems and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather,
> > and it's good enough for you.
>
> I hope this is sarcasm or a joke?

Obviously. His grandfather used SCCS.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


xmw at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:39 PM

Post #40 of 163 (330 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/23/2012 07:06 PM, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:

> Isnt cvs too sloow on mips? git is much more faster. Same for arm.
> About big repos, well why not use shallow cloned repo. It will work
> with plane history

Can we please cut that out.
I do/did arch testing on arm5, ppc, sparc on rsync trees and committed
the changes from my shiny 2007s notebook.
I did hesitate to spread my commit credentials over all these machines.

Michael
- --
- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+9Sv8ACgkQknrdDGLu8JBFLAEAghjKAQwckMndZfO/gGQyVI3N
butEASSJZYQetyNthUgA/3e5Sf9B93ED/wDSDflKP7YwTVwiFOe5c65Md4vdEsQs
=FW7S
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


williamh at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 1:55 PM

Post #41 of 163 (331 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 10:37:55PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 15:25:54 -0500
> William Hubbs <williamh [at] gentoo> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 01:07:08AM +0530, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> > > I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> > > Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
> > > systems and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather,
> > > and it's good enough for you.
> >
> > I hope this is sarcasm or a joke?
>
> Obviously. His grandfather used SCCS.

Heh, that's possible, or maybe he even used prodos [1], which was pretty
cool for its time.

William

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRODOS


ormaaj at gmail

May 23, 2012, 2:14 PM

Post #42 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it.
Would users have a way of gaining read-only access? This would be EXTREMELY
helpful. If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing with.
--
Dan Douglas
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


xmw at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 2:48 PM

Post #43 of 163 (327 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 05/23/2012 11:14 PM, Dan Douglas wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 23, 2012 04:47:04 PM Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using
>> it.

First, I'd stick with the current rsync to spread the tree (mirror
work and mirrors+regular rsync users shouldn't notice any backend
switch at all).


> Would users have a way of gaining read-only access? This would be
> EXTREMELY helpful.
Sure, this would be possible like any other git checkout
(layman-git-overlays, github.com, etc.).

Please compare (browsing source and access description)
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/
http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git


- --
Gentoo Dev
http://xmw.de/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREIAAYFAk+9W0EACgkQknrdDGLu8JADaQD+KC6cLJ5LqpNrKkNEBT1kAvJW
xn+ZcfcMGJzc8GPyQZAA/jKug+5/DlDAHVGBIjAJOi9xf4EFqroL4eyPY8SD2neh
=dvFZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


gienah at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 6:19 PM

Post #44 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

Michael Weber <xmw [at] gentoo> writes:
> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load).

+1 for clean cut to git


mattst88 at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 9:49 PM

Post #45 of 163 (330 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.
> --
> Arun Raghavan
> http://arunraghavan.net/
> (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)

I seriously cannot tell this is serious, trolling, or sarcasm. If it's
either of the latter two, can we please cut that out? Way too often
sarcasm and inside jokes are misunderstood and we waste a lot of
bandwidth figuring it out.


mgorny at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 10:56 PM

Post #46 of 163 (328 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
Dan Douglas <ormaaj [at] gmail> wrote:

> If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
> there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
> with.

Most of us will probably be doing that :P.

--
Best regards,
Michał Górny
Attachments: signature.asc (0.31 KB)


ormaaj at gmail

May 23, 2012, 11:04 PM

Post #47 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 07:56:58 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
>
> Dan Douglas <ormaaj [at] gmail> wrote:
> > If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
> > there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
> > with.
>
> Most of us will probably be doing that :P.

Eh sorry that wasn't meant to be antagonistic. I'll still have Gentoo boxen to
deal with. I just need to be able to use git on the tree (even without the
full history is perfectly fine) to ease the difficulty of local overlay
management. Glad to hear that will be possible, or at least somewhat easier.
--
Dan Douglas
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


1i5t5.duncan at cox

May 23, 2012, 11:33 PM

Post #48 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

Dan Douglas posted on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:04:48 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Thursday, May 24, 2012 07:56:58 AM Michał Górny wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
>>
>> Dan Douglas <ormaaj [at] gmail> wrote:
>> > If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
>> > there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
>> > with.
>>
>> Most of us will probably be doing that :P.
>
> Eh sorry that wasn't meant to be antagonistic. I'll still have Gentoo
> boxen to deal with. I just need to be able to use git on the tree (even
> without the full history is perfectly fine) to ease the difficulty of
> local overlay management. Glad to hear that will be possible, or at
> least somewhat easier.

FWIW, I as a user would sure like a git-based tree. Doing git whatchanged
searches on individual files and being able to track my last checkout and
roll back to it, or to a point between it and current HEAD, are extremely
useful. I haven't thought of it much until now, but I think maintaining
overlays as simple branches would be great, as well.

--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


pacho at gentoo

May 23, 2012, 11:34 PM

Post #49 of 163 (329 views)
Permalink
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

El mié, 23-05-2012 a las 17:00 -0300, Ezequiel Garcia escribió:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect [at] gentoo> wrote:
> > I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> > Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> > and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> > good enough for you.
>
>
> Perhaps it would be instructive if you could tell us one advantage of
> cvs over git.
>
> (This is me exposing me to your terrible dev-flames, I was feeling too cold ;)
>
>

I think Arun's comment was sarcastic ;)

I guess that cvsserver bug can be dropped from blockers, no? Now, the
other pending blockers... :(
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)


ormaaj at gmail

May 23, 2012, 11:51 PM

Post #50 of 163 (330 views)
Permalink
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver [In reply to]

On Thursday, May 24, 2012 06:33:53 AM Duncan wrote:
> Dan Douglas posted on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:04:48 -0500 as excerpted:
> > On Thursday, May 24, 2012 07:56:58 AM Michał Górny wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500
> >>
> >> Dan Douglas <ormaaj [at] gmail> wrote:
> >> > If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though
> >> > there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing
> >> > with.
> >>
> >> Most of us will probably be doing that :P.
> >
> > Eh sorry that wasn't meant to be antagonistic. I'll still have Gentoo
> > boxen to deal with. I just need to be able to use git on the tree (even
> > without the full history is perfectly fine) to ease the difficulty of
> > local overlay management. Glad to hear that will be possible, or at
> > least somewhat easier.
>
> FWIW, I as a user would sure like a git-based tree. Doing git whatchanged
> searches on individual files and being able to track my last checkout and
> roll back to it, or to a point between it and current HEAD, are extremely
> useful. I haven't thought of it much until now, but I think maintaining
> overlays as simple branches would be great, as well.

I don't think doing a branch of the entire tree is a good idea (well
maybe...). I was thinking more along the lines of subtree merges into a local
overlay, or perhaps submodules. To do that currently (I think) would require
taking the rsync tree and putting that into a repo, and trying to keep it
synchronized. Plus in the process you lose all correspondance with upstream
commits so that logs and diffs become meaningless.
--
Dan Douglas
Attachments: signature.asc (0.19 KB)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All Gentoo dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.