On Wed, 30 May 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Yeah... this is why I was asking about access to infra to test the
> > conversion; so far, I haven't had any replies, though.
> A mock conversion would probably help with creating
> procedures/docs/etc as well. It is nice to say that we're "just going
> to use git" but I think everybody has a slightly different picture of
> how that is going to work.
I recommend having a smallish set of willing alpha/beta testers for
this. This usually helps with some of the near-edge cases. You'll
still find a thousand other bugs once things go live for
everybody. Still, it turns a million into a thousand. It also
gives you slightly more realistic load test.
> If we could set up an "official unofficial" portage tree in git based
> on a one-time migration (maybe refreshing it from time to time) that
> could be a sandbox used to work things out, and it would then be
> replaced with the official tree. When the official migration comes
> along we'd already be experts in doing it.
This is a good idea that goes nicely with what I wrote above.
> All we need to do is execute the migration, and just not point the
> rsync generation process at it. Maybe it won't be perfectly right at
> first, and that would basically be the point of doing it. Devs could
> update tools to work against it, and the docs could be written
The scientist in me wonders how big the dent in productivity
will be, actually. After all, there's going to be a lot of people
that will hammer the new setup just because of the New! Shiny!