On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700
> Brian Harring <ferringb@...> wrote:
> 
> > Btw, good catch on package.mask.  Hhadn't thought of that, that 
> > *will* be the most contentious point.  That can be dealt w/ via 
> > having git on portage-1 profile format so we'd have package.mask as 
> > directories (which Ciaran will validly hate, and I won't like 
> > due to having to write the portage-1 -> PMS translater for 
> > rsync distribution), or coming up w/ a different way to split the 
> > commits across multiple files, rather than a single.
> 
> That doesn't like a 'lesser evil' to me. I'd rather see those few
> conflicts and fix them once in a while rather than having to lookup
> multiple package.mask files with entries split in a semi-random manner.

The rate of package.mask commits was calculated yesterday- it's around 
4.5 a day.

Non issue, move along...
~harring