List Archive: gentoo-scm
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 19-04-2010 11:38:30 +0200, Maciej Mrozowski wrote:
> On Monday 19 of April 2010 08:21:27 Fabian Groffen wrote:
> > On 18-04-2010 23:52:34 +0200, Michał Górny wrote:
> > > I've did as much as I could without getting more information, and
> > > turning everything around. What it can is:
> > > 1) Detect '.git' and enable Thin Manifests (only dirty check),
> > how about we use a file like manifest1_obsolete to switch from fat to
> > thin?
> Any reason for this?
> It shouldn't cause any merge conflicts as the difference between 'fat' and
> 'slim' are lines added/removed (I suppose DIST hashes would be generated in
> the same form as they are now, so SHA1, SHA256 and RMD160). It's just over-
> complicating things imho.
> Portage already is aware of scm vs rsync repositories as for instance some
> repoman checks are omitted for those scm ones. Therefore it seems correct to
> rely on this mechanism and let portage/repoman generate right (TM) Manifest
> for repository being used.
In my opinion they are dirty hacks that rely on their consumers: cvs
(Gentoo) and svn (Gentoo Prefix) are treated as full, while Git
(Funtoo), hg and bzr (Fauli) omit e.g. the ChangeLog check.
Gentoo on a different level