| 1 |
On Mon, Dec 19, 2005 at 10:38:10PM +0100, Fernando J. Pereda wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> It's not the size of the repo what matters... it is the workflow. I |
| 4 |
> don't know how they work... but I definately don't think ours suits in a |
| 5 |
> distributed SCM as Ciaran pointed out. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
I'm not sure about that. Having portage in arch/bazaar would let 'gentoo |
| 8 |
derivatives' to easily pull selective changes from the 'mainline', would |
| 9 |
potentially allow us to pull back from them, etc. It might facilitate the |
| 10 |
stable project to do branches of portage and snipe individual patches |
| 11 |
for updates, etc very easily. The distributed aspect of it doesn't |
| 12 |
necessary have to immediately impact core gentoo devs commiting ebuilds. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Or maybe not, I dunno. The point being I don't think we should immediately write off |
| 15 |
any of the distributed SCMs without pondering how they might make a difference or be usable. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
-pete |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Peter Johanson |
| 21 |
<latexer@g.o> |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives