| 1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 17 Apr 2013 14:36:59 -0400 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 2:35 PM, Mike Frysinger <vapier@g.o> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> it's at times like this i wish we had a git repo. `git log -p -C -M` |
| 6 |
>> is great at tracking this sort of stuff down. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I don't want to hijack this thread, but I don't believe we have a |
| 9 |
> tracker for the migration of docs / website / etc to git. Is there |
| 10 |
> simply not interest? I'm not sure what complexities exist compared to |
| 11 |
> the portage migration. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I'd guess that would be upto the docs team, etc. And while they might |
| 14 |
conceivably be interested, it's evidently not a priority or (as |
| 15 |
individual projects lack the complicating issues of the tree in general) |
| 16 |
they'd probably have it done by now, just as the various other projects |
| 17 |
already running git-based overlays or whatever. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
The main tree is the big one, tho. With many projects already running |
| 20 |
git internally, once the tree switches over, it's probably pretty safe to |
| 21 |
assume everything else (possibly with an occasional exception) will as |
| 22 |
well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 26 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 27 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives