1 |
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> 1. |
3 |
> Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge |
4 |
> commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if |
5 |
> the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different |
6 |
> histories, merges are absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from |
7 |
> having to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already pushed. |
8 |
|
9 |
Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a |
10 |
git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only committing |
11 |
to master on the gentoo official repository, and any on-the-side work |
12 |
on places like github/etc stays in branches? Those repositories would |
13 |
just keep getting fed commits on master from the official repository. |
14 |
|
15 |
> |
16 |
> 2. |
17 |
> Git-SVN breakage. Why does this matter you're wondering? |
18 |
> We need the newer Git for the commit signing, but it comes with a |
19 |
> price, the git-svn binary has some major failures with SVN 1.7. |
20 |
> Git since 1.7.8 has been broken this way. |
21 |
|
22 |
To clarify - these won't be issues for gentoo per se, but there is a |
23 |
sense that we can't stabilize the latest git because it will break it |
24 |
for people using git-svn on non-gentoo work? |
25 |
|
26 |
I think the general conclusion was that we would not be supporting any |
27 |
mixed git+cvs/svn/etc workflows for gentoo itself. |
28 |
|
29 |
If that is the case, what is our sense of how important this feature |
30 |
even is to gentoo developers? They're the only ones who really have |
31 |
to have the latest git to commit to the official tree. |
32 |
|
33 |
Rich |