| 1 |
On 23.05.2012 18:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: |
| 3 |
>> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git" |
| 4 |
>> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2]. |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write |
| 7 |
>> access to the portage tree. |
| 8 |
> The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via |
| 9 |
> git-cvsserver: |
| 10 |
> 1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts |
| 11 |
> - Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down a |
| 12 |
> fairly large packfile. |
| 13 |
> 2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS) |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
>> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp, |
| 18 |
>> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some |
| 19 |
>> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours |
| 20 |
>> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load). |
| 21 |
> 1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do initial |
| 22 |
> clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download. |
| 23 |
> 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git? |
| 27 |
You are probably the one who can judge best if the infra side could be |
| 28 |
made ready soonish. |
Archives