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: Thu, 31 May 2012 13:48:29 -0400
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
> 1.
> Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
> commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if
> the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different
> histories, merges are absolutely going to be required to prevent somebody from
> having to rebase at least one of their sets of commits that are already pushed.

Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
git novice.  Would this be aided by a convention, like only committing
to master on the gentoo official repository, and any on-the-side work
on places like github/etc stays in branches?  Those repositories would
just keep getting fed commits on master from the official repository.

>
> 2.
> Git-SVN breakage. Why does this matter you're wondering?
> We need the newer Git for the commit signing, but it comes with a
> price, the git-svn binary has some major failures with SVN 1.7.
> Git since 1.7.8 has been broken this way.

To clarify - these won't be issues for gentoo per se, but there is a
sense that we can't stabilize the latest git because it will break it
for people using git-svn on non-gentoo work?

I think the general conclusion was that we would not be supporting any
mixed git+cvs/svn/etc workflows for gentoo itself.

If that is the case, what is our sense of how important this feature
even is to gentoo developers?  They're the only ones who really have
to have the latest git to commit to the official tree.

Rich


Replies:
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
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
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
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
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: Should packages auto-eselect alternative implementation on removal?
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.