| 1 |
On 2 June 2012 04:33, Robin H. Johnson <robbat2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:45:48AM -0500, William Hubbs wrote: |
| 3 |
>> Overlays are completely separate repositories. There is nothing stopping |
| 4 |
>> an overlay from using git right now even if the main tree isn't using |
| 5 |
>> git. They just work in their git repositories until they are ready to |
| 6 |
>> commit something to the main tree, then they move the changes to the |
| 7 |
>> main tree. |
| 8 |
> What about overlay repositories that elect to be a branch of the main |
| 9 |
> tree via git? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Do we call that forbidden usage? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You can't practically use any overlay foolish enough to publish these |
| 14 |
repositories for end user consumption. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Its just a silly idea. There's no problem with having overlays cloned |
| 17 |
into a branch as a step towards it hitting mainline, but overlays |
| 18 |
being distributed to users as main tree branches is just a silly idea. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Mostly, because end-users will still have ::gentoo via rsync, and the |
| 21 |
load of cloning a git repo of ::gentoo will be too much for the |
| 22 |
average user, doing that just to get an overlay is exhaustively |
| 23 |
execessive vs the current mechanism we have for overlays, and it comes |
| 24 |
at a penalty at being not as good as overlays in that you can't easily |
| 25 |
have >1 of them. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Kent |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
perl -e "print substr( \"edrgmaM SPA NOcomil.ic\\@tfrken\", \$_ * 3, |
| 31 |
3 ) for ( 9,8,0,7,1,6,5,4,3,2 );" |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
http://kent-fredric.fox.geek.nz |
Archives