1 |
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 14:24:24 -0400 |
2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2015 at 2:09 PM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
> > Signed-off-by has a completely different purpose which is not part |
6 |
> > of our workflow, so that tag is pretty useless to us most of the |
7 |
> > time. |
8 |
> > |
9 |
> > See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Gentoo_git_workflow#Sign-Off |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> |
12 |
> I agree. Generally it is used to signify agreement to a developer |
13 |
> certificate of origin. I would recommend using it for any other |
14 |
> purpose, especially since there has been talk of instituting a DCO for |
15 |
> Gentoo (based on the Linux DCO). We're not at the point of doing that |
16 |
> just yet, but I wouldn't stick something entirely different in that |
17 |
> field so that if we do institute a DCO we end up doing it differently |
18 |
> than every other project that uses Git. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> If we want to capture this it should go in its own header. If the |
21 |
> goal is to capture the repoman version, then I'd just capture the |
22 |
> repoman version, or some identifier for the set of rules repoman was |
23 |
> checking against at the moment (I'm not sure if repoman uses any kind |
24 |
> of data updated outside of portage releases). |
25 |
> |
26 |
|
27 |
It does not other the the metadata.dtd file it checks for updates and |
28 |
updates itself with. But that is very likely to change with the |
29 |
rewrite I have in progress (albeit slowly). I have also seriously been |
30 |
contemplating splitting off it's release from the main portage package. |
31 |
|
32 |
Most users don't ever use repoman. Plus once the plugin system and |
33 |
checks data downloads are in place, there will be far less need for |
34 |
updates and releases. I would still keep it part of the portage |
35 |
repository due to it's ties to the codebase. Just release it as a |
36 |
separate installable package. |
37 |
|
38 |
-- |
39 |
Brian Dolbec <dolsen> |