1 |
On 06-04-2010 07:43:02 +0530, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote: |
2 |
> * It makes zero sense to manually manage ChangeLogs in git[1] |
3 |
> - Irritating conflicts while merging branches or remote master |
4 |
> + Similar argument for having only distfile manifests; but I digress... |
5 |
> - Duplication of effort and information |
6 |
> - Saves space for local checkouts |
7 |
|
8 |
This seems to assume |
9 |
a) that we will do branches, and |
10 |
b) that those branches somehow are official and in use |
11 |
|
12 |
In CVS we are not allowed to use branches, as a policy, that somehow |
13 |
makes sense. Our stable tree is visible via keywords instead. |
14 |
|
15 |
Why would we suddenly do branches? It still isn't a good thing. If you |
16 |
talk about branches in the sense of a clone of the entire repo, why |
17 |
would we suddenly do massive concurrent development on the same ebuilds? |
18 |
|
19 |
I can tell you from good experience that you only do such things if you |
20 |
really have to, e.g. when you are in an overlay that needs to have |
21 |
modifications to nearly everything and you try to keep that overlay |
22 |
up-to-date with its origin, gentoo-x86. It's no fun, because it |
23 |
conflicts pretty much on lots of things, not ChangeLogs. |
24 |
|
25 |
It seems to me, that if you are in a clone working on something, you |
26 |
just only write the ChangeLog once you merge it with its origin, |
27 |
gentoo-x86. You have to review what happened at that stage anyway. |
28 |
|
29 |
If you really have lots of changes, you will find that many commits on |
30 |
the other side will cause you conflicts, so the ChangeLog is just a very |
31 |
small part of it. Conclusion, if you can, try hard to keep your changes |
32 |
minimal, and preferably zero compared to the origin, gentoo-x86. |
33 |
|
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
Fabian Groffen |
37 |
Gentoo on a different level |