| 1 |
On Tuesday 23 March 2004 22:25, Joel Martin wrote: |
| 2 |
> Thoughts anyone? Especially from you new devs? |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Joel Martin (kanaka) |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
One advantage is that you don't have to wait for an hour for the rsync mirrors |
| 7 |
to catch up with any commits you've made. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
But the tree has reached the size where syncing the entire tree from CVS is |
| 10 |
very slow - and it must put a strain on the CVS server too. I wonder if we |
| 11 |
should seriously start looking to migrate from CVS to something a little more |
| 12 |
network friendly ... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
What would be great would be if Portage supported more than one |
| 15 |
PORTDIR_OVERLAY tree on the same box. Then you can have a local Portage tree |
| 16 |
for developing new ebuilds, then the CVS one to commit and test in, and |
| 17 |
finally the rsync tree to catch all the ebuilds missing from the other two |
| 18 |
trees. That sounds like it'd be a good compromise. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Best regards, |
| 21 |
Stu |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Stuart Herbert stuart@g.o |
| 24 |
Gentoo Developer http://www.gentoo.org/ |
| 25 |
Missed the php|cruise? http://dev.gentoo.org/~stuart/cruise-2004/ |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
GnuGP key id# F9AFC57C available from http://pgp.mit.edu |
| 28 |
Key fingerprint = 31FB 50D4 1F88 E227 F319 C549 0C2F 80BA F9AF C57C |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives