Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 14:28:29 -0400
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
> What about overlay repositories that elect to be a branch of the main
> tree via git?
>
> Do we call that forbidden usage?

I think that branches off of the main tree are mainly going to be
useful for more eclass/profile/etc-related work.  Work on a package or
small group of packages will almost always go better in a completely
independent overlay.  If you try to do that kind of work in a branch
then if you create an rsync tree from that branch it will contain all
the other packages that you aren't working on, and they'll get stale
very quickly.  Anybody using that as an overlay will get a bunch of
old ebuilds for who-knows-what in their tree.

Now, branches in the main tree are going to be really useful for stuff
like package moves, new virtuals, eclass api changes, or other messy
changes that have big tree-wide impacts.  You can stage the change and
fix the 300 impacted ebuilds in a branch, get lots of people to test
them, and then merge those in with a single transaction, pulling in
updates from master all the while.  That is more about portage tree
maintenance than package maintenance per-se.

All that said, having the tree in git is still a big help to proxy
maintainers and others even with all these issues.  I've worked as an
outside contributor to other projects and it is a lot easier with git.
 I can easily work in my own PM, rebase against their master, and then
easily submit a nice clean diff as a patch, even without doing any
pushing at all.  I don't have to have push rights to anything official
to be more efficient in my contributions.

Rich


References:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.