Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Should portage tree CVS impose a commit moratorium during snapshot creation?

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 7:42 AM, Diego Elio Pettenò
<flameeyes@×××××××××.eu> wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 13:37, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>> Translation: "We all know that there are lots of things that would be a
>> hell of a lot easier if we weren't the only project in the world still
>> using CVS, but the Git migration is never going to happen, so
>> mentioning it just makes everyone angry."
>
> No, since you don't seem to speak proper English I'll translate it properly:
>
> "I don't really give a fuck about the Git migration at this point
> because I have other things to care about, somebody else is taking care
> of it. On the other hand, I'm tired of half the threads on this bloody
> mailing list to end up discussing back-and-forth about the Git
> migration...

The problem with this logic is that the topic is still quite relevant
to Gentoo, and building more and more hacks into how we handle
packages to make up for the fact that we're not using git means that
there are going to be more and more hacks to undo when the time for
the switch actually comes.

It is really not productive to have 3 people working on switching to
git, and 10 people working on adding more blockers to the migration.
Logic that depends on cvs keywords in ebuilds should be considered
deprecated now.  Logic that creates serial numbers that are going to
change in six months should be considered deprecated before it is
implemented (unless nobody cares that they're going to change).

> especially when half the people posting have no idea of
> what's going on, are not involved in the migration, or expect said
> migration to solve all the issues of the world, poverty included."

Well, they'll solve this particular set of issues, and therefore the
topic is quite relevant.  Those who are knowledgeable are welcome to
reply - such replies will be more helpful than blanket "don't talk
about git" posts.

Rich