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: Tobias Klausmann <klausman@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 18:53:32 +0200
Hi! 

On Wed, 30 May 2012, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> 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
> alongside.

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!
appeal.

Regards,
Tobias


Replies:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Aaron W. Swenson
References:
Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michael Weber
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
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: 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.