| 1 |
Rich Freeman schrieb: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 2:22 PM, Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 3 |
> <chithanh@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I think the point of a graveyard repository is that discovering and |
| 5 |
>> extracting deleted ebuilds from git is more cumbersome than from CVS attic. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> It would be even better if the graveyard repository preserved the commit |
| 8 |
>> history, but I don't see any easy solution for that. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Like I said. If the only use case is helping people who don't know |
| 12 |
> how to use git find deleted ebuilds, then just create a directory tree |
| 13 |
> with everything that was ever in the Gentoo repo. That would be |
| 14 |
> pretty easy to script. QA doesn't need to have anything to do with |
| 15 |
> it. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I'm sorry for harping on that topic again, but if we had used grobian's |
| 18 |
initial proposal for git migration[0] - one repository per package, and the |
| 19 |
portage tree would be an aggregation of those - then we could have such a |
| 20 |
thing basically for free now. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
But that's how it is now. Getting ebuilds from CVS attic could be done via |
| 23 |
the sources.g.o web interface even, no local checkout needed. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Chí-Thanh Christopher Nguyễn |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
[0] |
| 30 |
https://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/message/753620a99ab88b9525a253590617db3c |
Archives