| 1 |
Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> repoman is inferior to other tooling mentioned. The other tooling is |
| 3 |
> actually run in CI. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The problem seems to be that CI is running something other than |
| 6 |
developers run, not the other way around. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> Developers should get the same warnings locally as in CI. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
I agree. And developers and their tools should not have to bend to |
| 12 |
whatever CI does, I think the other way around makes more sense. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
CI doesn't use repoman because of performance issues. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
What if pkgcore evolves to provide a portage-compatible API? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Then CI could use repoman without performance problems, and |
| 20 |
developers would also enjoy improved performance, without spending |
| 21 |
time on replacing tooling which already works for them. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Looking into the future then maybe portage could even come to use |
| 24 |
pkgcore for the low-level things that pkgcore does, then even users |
| 25 |
could enjoy improved performance. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Right? |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
//Peter |
Archives