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: Thu, 31 May 2012 22:05:44
Message-Id: CAATnKFAVj8U0jxqitcF4zosa9p5N3PwmVEYchsfELW9m-0b+MQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
On 1 June 2012 08:26, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted: > Of course, if all the official overlays are converted to git branches of > the main tree... but won't they still require rebasing as they've already > been pushed?  (This assumes your workaround idea doesn't work.  If it > does, great!) >
End users will still want to work with overlays that are not merged with the main tree, not merely git branches. Its foreseeable that there will be git branches that /track/ overlays and exist as an integration pipeline for content from the overlays joining core gentoo, but end users will not want to use that. For the simple reason of course, that as soon as you want >1 overlay, portage's way of doing it with separate repositories is far more effective. You don't want each user to have to maintain an octopus merge between all the branches they want to have commits from ;) -- 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