| 1 |
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 06:33:53 AM Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dan Douglas posted on Thu, 24 May 2012 01:04:48 -0500 as excerpted: |
| 3 |
> > On Thursday, May 24, 2012 07:56:58 AM Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> On Wed, 23 May 2012 16:14:53 -0500 |
| 5 |
> >> |
| 6 |
> >> Dan Douglas <ormaaj@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> > If not I will be leaving Gentoo for Funtoo in the near future, though |
| 8 |
> >> > there are disadvantages to doing this I don't look forward to dealing |
| 9 |
> >> > with. |
| 10 |
> >> |
| 11 |
> >> Most of us will probably be doing that :P. |
| 12 |
> > |
| 13 |
> > Eh sorry that wasn't meant to be antagonistic. I'll still have Gentoo |
| 14 |
> > boxen to deal with. I just need to be able to use git on the tree (even |
| 15 |
> > without the full history is perfectly fine) to ease the difficulty of |
| 16 |
> > local overlay management. Glad to hear that will be possible, or at |
| 17 |
> > least somewhat easier. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> FWIW, I as a user would sure like a git-based tree. Doing git whatchanged |
| 20 |
> searches on individual files and being able to track my last checkout and |
| 21 |
> roll back to it, or to a point between it and current HEAD, are extremely |
| 22 |
> useful. I haven't thought of it much until now, but I think maintaining |
| 23 |
> overlays as simple branches would be great, as well. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I don't think doing a branch of the entire tree is a good idea (well |
| 26 |
maybe...). I was thinking more along the lines of subtree merges into a local |
| 27 |
overlay, or perhaps submodules. To do that currently (I think) would require |
| 28 |
taking the rsync tree and putting that into a repo, and trying to keep it |
| 29 |
synchronized. Plus in the process you lose all correspondance with upstream |
| 30 |
commits so that logs and diffs become meaningless. |
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Dan Douglas |
Archives