Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 13:08:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Rich Freeman
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 30 May 2012 07:32:49 -0400 as excerpted:

> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 6:16 AM, Dirkjan Ochtman <djc@g.o> wrote: >> Yeah... this is why I was asking about access to infra to test the >> conversion; so far, I haven't had any replies, though. >> >> > A mock conversion would probably help with creating procedures/docs/etc > as well. It is nice to say that we're "just going to use git" but I > think everybody has a slightly different picture of how that is going to > work.
I /believe/ such mock conversions had been done, based on previous threads here, tho NOT on the SCM-migration list, which would certainly have the greater detail. AFAIK the previous sticking points were all those still-open bugs, not the general conversion. But the bugs, other than documentation, either seem mostly fixed or not so important, any more. Of course, those previous trial runs are probably similarly dated, now, so a new one's probably in order with the new perspective on those bug priorities, etc, but at least getting the input of someone that was involved with them should speed progress over some already covered ground, in any case. (I've considered following scmm myself, but there's apparently some sort of issue between gmane, pan, and lists commonly crossposted between, that has already killed project for me, header-fetch does nothing, and scmm would almost certainly be similarly dead to me.) -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman


Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>