Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 12:08:39
Message-Id: CAKmKYaAALu6YBxQsFB5zr9KoMC2th8741KwkRvtVbck5vmBEuw@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
> In that regard, git is nothing like for instance svn, where branches come > at a much higher cost, as does merging between them.
That's wrong. SVN branches are just about as cheap as git branches, although merges used to be much more painful. I'm not sure how good merging in recent SVN is. Let's please stay a little on-topic? The migration will get there much faster if we don't succumb to feature creep. Cheers, Dirkjan

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com>