| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz schrieb: |
| 2 |
> Greg KH wrote: |
| 3 |
>> What was the reasons he cited? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Given that ports is pretty similar to our gentoo-x86, I'd guess about |
| 6 |
> the same ones mentioned at |
| 7 |
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/gleps/glep-0666.txt -- I quote |
| 8 |
> from there: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> 1. Git currently requires you to check out the whole repository. |
| 11 |
> This includes *all of the history*. |
| 12 |
> 2. Git cannot update portions of the repository, it can only update |
| 13 |
> the entire thing. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
This was one of the big reasons. They (and we maybe as well) have people |
| 16 |
there with 56k/64k dialup connections. Checking out the whole thing |
| 17 |
would take ages. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Second thing was that absolutely none of the scripts would be able to |
| 20 |
handle it and they would have to be rewritten from ground up whereas |
| 21 |
most of them would work with svn if you just change the binary path (or |
| 22 |
symlink it even) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> The conversion to GIT from CVS was also lengthy |
| 25 |
> (approximately two weeks) althought many projects attempted a switch |
| 26 |
> this summer and tools have improved in speed. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This one was the third. At the time they tried, the conversion could not |
| 29 |
be suspended, so cvs would have to be taken offline for a really long time. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
And the last thing was the idea about distribution. There is one |
| 32 |
"centrally" maintained tree and people commit to it all day. So the |
| 33 |
chance of getting conflicts in pushes if one is on tour for three days |
| 34 |
would be very likely and so the distributed part of the VCs wouldn't be |
| 35 |
helpful. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Jokey |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
-- |
| 40 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives