| 1 |
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800 |
| 2 |
Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to |
| 4 |
> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This |
| 5 |
> creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing distribution of metadata |
| 6 |
> cache via version control systems is more flexible. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Ok, if we're going to encourage this, let's do it properly: |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
* Have a branch called 'master'. Commit to it. Don't stick any metadata |
| 11 |
in it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
* Have a branch called 'master-with-metadata'. Don't commit to it |
| 14 |
manually. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
* Have a script that merges master to master-with-metadata, and as part |
| 17 |
of the merge commit, generates all necessary metadata for the range |
| 18 |
it's merging. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
* Store either the partial hash or the owning repository and timestamp |
| 21 |
of each eclass used by an ebuild in its metadata. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Ciaran McCreesh |
Archives