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: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@...>
Subject: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 09:38:51 +0000 (UTC)
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 29 May 2012 21:55:04 -0400 as excerpted:

> So, what is the big issue?  Is there something not being tracked, or is
> one of those items a lot harder than it looks?

I'd suggest that it's like openrc stabilization.  The biggest problem 
with it is that it's a BIG job, and the simplest solution is to simply 
have someone commit to it, with full council *priority* backing, and push 
and push until it's done.

There *is* one huge don't-do-it-that-way lesson to take from the openrc 
stabilization, tho:  Get the documentation in place BEFORE "throwing the 
switch".  I'm still not sure what happened with openrc.  The 
documentation bug was a blocker... until it was the last one and then 
suddenly it went live without proper upgrade documentation, or that's the 
way it seemed from here, anyway.  The fact that we had essentially no doc-
project to work on the documentation was unfortunately a problem, the one 
guy still trying to hang on in docs so backlogged and burnt out that it 
was about hopeless, action time stretching toward infinity, but swift 
coming back on board dramatically improved that situation so at least it 
shouldn't be an infinity blocker, now.

But really what that means is that whoever ends up taking charge of that 
final push, needs to be prepared to learn gentoo's docs CSS definitions 
and do it themself, if it comes to that.

Meanwhile, the positive takeaway from the openrc stabilization is that 
someone suitably determined, along with council backing and everyone else 
rowing the same way where their little part of gentoo comes into contact 
with the job at hand, goes a long way!

Of course, there's a much larger infra component to the git migration, so 
either having that someone being an infra person, or at least having 
someone from infra have the time and be willing to work closely with 
them, is going to be critical.  But again, given a council "*priority*, 
let's move on it!" decision, I'd at least /hope/ that's not a blocker.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman



Replies:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
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
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
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.