| 1 |
On 5/4/06, Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote: |
| 3 |
> > From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo |
| 4 |
> > tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and |
| 5 |
> > Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to |
| 6 |
> > support without overloading the arch teams. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Are you kidding me? What about people that commit for multiple arches? |
| 9 |
> They're now going to have to do the same commit over $x number of trees? |
| 10 |
> How exactly will that not overload the arch teams? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Talking about an SVN perspective ... provided the trees live in a |
| 13 |
single repository (which would make a lot of sense), it would be very |
| 14 |
straightforward to provide a tool to copy a particular ebuild & its |
| 15 |
files from an unstable tree simultaneously to the other trees. The |
| 16 |
difficulties with such a tool would be taking over the right files/ |
| 17 |
contents (something which is solveable), and what to do about signing |
| 18 |
(where a distribtued system like Git probably makes much more sense |
| 19 |
anyway). |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Given such a tool, you could promote a version of a package to any |
| 22 |
number of per-arch trees at the same time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
> The more I hear about all of these great features of qall of these |
| 25 |
> alternative SCM's, the more I think that somebody just has a hard-on for |
| 26 |
> getting rid of CVS and plans on doing it, no matter the cost to |
| 27 |
> efficiency and other developers. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
What we're talking about here is a step in the development cycle |
| 30 |
commonly called 'integration', where something's taken from the |
| 31 |
development bucket, put into the 'release' bucket, and tested to |
| 32 |
ensure that it plays nice with everything else already in the |
| 33 |
'release' bucket. It should be listed in RUP, CMM, or whatever |
| 34 |
development methodology you use locally in your day job. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Adopting this approach would be far more painful with CVS than with |
| 37 |
(say) subversion. Branch management in subversion is infinitely |
| 38 |
easier than with CVS. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
Best regards, |
| 41 |
Stu |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
-- |
| 44 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives