Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [OT/NIT] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:38:38
Message-Id: CAEdQ38HYCVOSpfSuNO-6pCpvW=oS0w=1iB2WoSt6pa83T3Vzwg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [OT/NIT] Re: Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in profiles: ChangeLog package.mask by Jeroen Roovers
1 On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Jeroen Roovers <jer@g.o> wrote:
2 > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC)
3 > Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net> wrote:
4 >
5 >> Alexis Ballier posted on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:40:33 +0200 as excerpted:
6 >> > I don't see how git helps. You'll have to commit twice then push, vs
7 >> > commit twice with cvs.
8 >>
9 >> But git commits are quite lightweight, while as someone already
10 >> pointed out, cvs commits, if done properly with repoman, are anything
11 >> but.
12 >
13 > Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks with
14 > the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone.
15
16 I didn't interpret it that way. cvs commits are just kind of
17 expensive, even without repoman doing checks.