Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:03:15
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] Call for agenda items -- Council meeting 2012-03-13 by Alexey Shvetsov
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 11:45:40AM +0300, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
> Not sure if its for council.
I don't think it's suitable for council, but it does need more discussion than it's been getting on the scm list.
> Define timeframe for cvs->git migration. Technical issues almount > finished > 1. Thin manifests already in portage > 2. Git commit signing already there (if git-1.7.9 will be keyworded due > to issue with svn 1.7 [git-svn functionality with SVN 1.7 if your > SVN repo URL, branch name or tag names contains characters that need > URL escaping])
Do you have a fix for the Git SVN 1.7 problem then? Other items not included in the above, that we need some agreement on. - Initial tree state: Single commit, signed by me, with a graft of history available as a separate download (it's ~1200MB) . This ensures that all of the history is available AND that the usual downloads for developers are very small. Alternatively, how much history should we include in the base download? - Log generation - Potentially dropping Changelogs in Git (generate shortly during rsync tree generation?) - Merge policies This is the hardest political topic. Do we force users to rebase before they push to the tree? Before you say yes, of course, there is a catch: If the user publishes their work in MORE than one place, and does push to remote A/master, pull from remote B/master, rebase master on B/master, push to remote B/master. Now what do they do about the state of remote A? They _HAVE_ to either have a merge of A/master, or destroy the history at A/master with a forced push. -- Robin Hugh Johnson Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead E-Mail : robbat2@g.o GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85