Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 01:55:57
Message-Id: CAGfcS_kOCDZ6Ur37+YYx4DR+1b3c-VWE6eNiefS7HJbqtuKKJA@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Alexey Shvetsov
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 12:18 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@g.o> wrote:
> Since most of us want "clean cut" solution so i will close bug #333699 as > WONTFIX
Along these lines, I'm looking at 333531 (the git migration tracker), and it seems like there isn't actually much to do: 333685 - Seems like no action, and not sure how critical 333687 - while the bug is still open, as far as I can tell it seems good enough to me to move forward 333697 - ditto 333701 - paused since there are other tasks to do first, though it seems to me that little remains 333705 - not sure how critical this actually is - do we care if in some obscure case history is lost? Nothing says that we have to completely destroy the old cvs repo. Maybe we should just do a mock migration now and post copies of the before/after somewhere public and let people have at them. 333709 - seems like there is legitimate work to be done here, but again nothing that big So, what is the big issue? Is there something not being tracked, or is one of those items a lot harder than it looks? Rich

Replies

Subject Author
[gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@×××.net>