List Archive: gentoo-dev
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On 23.05.2012 18:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
>> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
>>  and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" .
>> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
>> access to the portage tree.
> The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via
> 1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts
> - Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down a
> fairly large packfile.
> 2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS)
> If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1.
>> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
>> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
>> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to , some hours
>> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load).
> 1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do initial
> clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download.
> 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it.
Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git?
You are probably the one who can judge best if the infra side could be
made ready soonish.