Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:55:58
Message-Id: CAATnKFAPP85wbRR9_J0zo0gG7tahufOMKyOLQuknzNdWwdusQA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by "Robin H. Johnson"
On 2 June 2012 04:33, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:45:48AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: >> Overlays are completely separate repositories. There is nothing stopping >> an overlay from using git right now even if the main tree isn't using >> git. They just work in their git repositories until they are ready to >> commit something to the main tree, then they move the changes to the >> main tree. > What about overlay repositories that elect to be a branch of the main > tree via git? > > Do we call that forbidden usage?
You can't practically use any overlay foolish enough to publish these repositories for end user consumption. Its just a silly idea. There's no problem with having overlays cloned into a branch as a step towards it hitting mainline, but overlays being distributed to users as main tree branches is just a silly idea. Mostly, because end-users will still have ::gentoo via rsync, and the load of cloning a git repo of ::gentoo will be too much for the average user, doing that just to get an overlay is exhaustively execessive vs the current mechanism we have for overlays, and it comes at a penalty at being not as good as overlays in that you can't easily have >1 of them. -- Kent perl -e  "print substr( \"edrgmaM  SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, 3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz