1 |
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: |
2 |
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700 |
3 |
> Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
> > Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that |
6 |
> > *will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via |
7 |
> > having git on portage-1 profile format so we'd have package.mask as |
8 |
> > directories (which Ciaran will validly hate, and I won't like |
9 |
> > due to having to write the portage-1 -> PMS translater for |
10 |
> > rsync distribution), or coming up w/ a different way to split the |
11 |
> > commits across multiple files, rather than a single. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> That doesn't like a 'lesser evil' to me. I'd rather see those few |
14 |
> conflicts and fix them once in a while rather than having to lookup |
15 |
> multiple package.mask files with entries split in a semi-random manner. |
16 |
|
17 |
The rate of package.mask commits was calculated yesterday- it's around |
18 |
4.5 a day. |
19 |
|
20 |
Non issue, move along... |
21 |
~harring |