Archives
Archives
| From: | justin <jlec@g.o> | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| To: | gentoo-dev@l.g.o | ||
| Subject: | Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver | ||
| Date: | Wed, 23 May 2012 14:55:06 | ||
| Message-Id: | 4FBCFA11.2060209@gentoo.org | ||
| In Reply to: | [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Michael Weber |
||
| 1 | On 23/05/12 14:42, Michael Weber wrote: |
| 2 | |
| 3 | > Hi, |
| 4 | > |
| 5 | > i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git" |
| 6 | > [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2]. |
| 7 | > |
| 8 | > There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write |
| 9 | > access to the portage tree. |
| 10 | > |
| 11 | > "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp, |
| 12 | |
| 13 | |
| 14 | I want to see to it gone. +1 |
| File name | MIME type |
|---|---|
| signature.asc | application/pgp-signature |