Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Thilo Bangert <bangert@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS
Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:56:42
Message-Id: 200810062054.17180.bangert@gentoo.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: Welcome to Gentoo-SCM discussion, for figuring out Gentoo beyond CVS by Ciaran McCreesh
Ciaran McCreesh <ciaran.mccreesh@××××××××××.com> said:
> On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 19:10:58 +0200 > > Robert Buchholz <rbu@g.o> wrote: > > > > our current VCS is inhibiting development and innovation. our > > > > repo layout is not! > > > > > > I would say it is (exherbo is a half-decent example of something I > > > think is better). > > > > What problems are we trying to solve? > > Why is the exherbo approach better? > > The Exherbo approach relies upon the package manager being good at > dealing with larger numbers of interdependent repositories. Unless > you've got a way of making Portage support things like repository deps, > unavailable-format repositories [1] and multiple repositories with > multiple dependencies, switching is going to make things pretty much > unusable for anyone using Portage...
which is a perfect example for why the repo layout discussion should not be dragged into this. lets switch to something better now (a better VCS) and then to something even better (a nicer repo layout) afterwards. if we take up the repo layout discussion we will be going nowhere... yes - i want pink ponies too. but for now, i'll settle for purple ones...

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature