| 1 |
On 06-08-2011 20:55:05 +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Aug 06, 2011 at 04:13:52PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 3 |
> > In this email, I step away from the current model that Gentoo uses for |
| 4 |
> > the gentoo-x86 repository. Instead, I consider a repo-per-package |
| 5 |
> > model, as in use by e.g. Fedora [1] and Debian [2]. |
| 6 |
> Everything you have mentioned here was previously covered in the |
| 7 |
> discussions about Git conversion models. Please consult the history of |
| 8 |
> this list, as well as the -scm list. Additionally, a large discussion |
| 9 |
> about the pros and cons of all 3 models (package per repo, category per |
| 10 |
> repo, single repo) was had at the GSoC mentor summit last year, and a |
| 11 |
> number of the core Git developers were involved in the discussion. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I see now my previous search wasn't complete. Please correct me if I'm |
| 14 |
wrong, but I have the impression the previous discussions looked at |
| 15 |
repo-per-package just from a storage point of view, not from a |
| 16 |
functional point of view. The git overhead for repo-per-package is |
| 17 |
admittedly quite undesirable. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Problems: |
| 20 |
> - atomic/well-ordered commits that span packages, eclasses and profiles/ |
| 21 |
> directories. (Esp. committing to eclasses and then packages |
| 22 |
> afterwards). |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
This can be done with a single commit to the rsync tree script, and it |
| 25 |
doesn't necessarily need git repos. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 30 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives