| 1 |
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 18:02, Caleb Cushing <xenoterracide@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> wow, that explanation makes little sense to me |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
that's exactly my problem too :-) Let's just forget about that. Both |
| 5 |
our wording seams to be unclear, however I think it is not really that |
| 6 |
relevant. What is relevant is that your description below allows my to |
| 7 |
understand your concerns. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> apache.git with branches master host1 host2 host3 |
| 10 |
> postfix.git with branchnes master host1 host2... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> I think what you've proposed is |
| 13 |
> repo config.git with branches apache postfix bind |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
No what I propose is to combine the two. Though I have to admit I |
| 16 |
wasn't clear on that |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
$ git branch -a |
| 19 |
app-misc/foo/vanilla |
| 20 |
app-misc/foo/live |
| 21 |
app-misc/foo/some-experiment |
| 22 |
app-misc/foo/used-this-for-a-while |
| 23 |
app-misc/bar/vanilla |
| 24 |
app-misc/bar/live |
| 25 |
remotes/you/app-misc/foo/live |
| 26 |
remotes/you/app-misc/foo/test |
| 27 |
remotes/look-how-nicely-i-combined-foo-and-bar/app-misc/ffoo/the-way-to-go |
| 28 |
remotes/look-how-nicely-i-combined-foo-and-bar/app-misc/fbar/the-way-to-go |
| 29 |
remotes/look-how-nicely-i-combined-foo-and-bar/app-misc/fbar/if-that-did-not-work |
| 30 |
remotes/help-i-dont-now-how-this-works/app-misc/ffoo/live |
| 31 |
... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> this doesn't work, why? you can't merge branches, branches are mostly |
| 34 |
> supposed to have similar content and be merge-able, they aren't |
| 35 |
> supposed to contain completely separate data, use different repo's for |
| 36 |
> that. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
With the above this works perfectly. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
>I don't consider the whole of config separate myself, like I |
| 41 |
> said, I think they are related by host, or even by type of box, one |
| 42 |
> could also define |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
Do you not have for example documentation branches alongside the |
| 45 |
source branches? I think there are situations where it is okay to have |
| 46 |
"unrelated" branches in the same repository. This being one. |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
> in fact the system should create config.git master should be stored |
| 49 |
> all the default configs |
| 50 |
|
| 51 |
That's how my current plan looks like. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
$ cfs sets |
| 54 |
@my-complete-configuration |
| 55 |
... |
| 56 |
@my-complete-configuration-without-packages-containing-private-data |
| 57 |
... |
| 58 |
@my-keyboard-related-stuff |
| 59 |
- sys-apps/baselayout |
| 60 |
- x11-misc/xkeyboard-config |
| 61 |
... |
| 62 |
@remotes/some-security-guru/secure-your-desktop |
| 63 |
+ net-firewall/shorewall |
| 64 |
- net-misc/tor |
| 65 |
... |
| 66 |
|
| 67 |
This would behave much like sets in portage. However when sets |
| 68 |
conflict things get complicated. cfs has to be able to resolve such a |
| 69 |
situation making it non-trivial. |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
Does this make sense? |
Archives