| 1 |
On Mon, 2019-02-04 at 11:58 +0100, Alexis Ballier wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2019 20:28:49 +0100 |
| 3 |
> Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > --- |
| 6 |
> > What do you think? |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> What is the difference with sunrise ? |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
The difference, as noted in the mail, is that it doesn't rely |
| 12 |
on developers having time to review ebuilds. Therefore, it is less |
| 13 |
likely to die because of developers lacking time to review stuff. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> One of the advantages of sunrise is that it had 2 repos: One |
| 16 |
> unreviewed, without Gentoo official name and big fat warnings, one |
| 17 |
> reviewed by devs more widely available. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
No. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
First of all, they weren't really two repos -- they were more like |
| 22 |
private and public branches which were made into two repos due to |
| 23 |
technical limitations. With the public branch getting all the commits |
| 24 |
from private branch merged. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Secondly, both branches were reviewed. The difference is that people |
| 27 |
were supposed to ask for (IRC) review before committing to the first |
| 28 |
branch, and only developers were allowed to merge to the second branch. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Thirdly, I have no clue what 'Gentoo official name' is in this contexts |
| 31 |
and I certainly don't recall big fat warnings. The only difference was |
| 32 |
that the public repo was advertised publicly while the former was |
| 33 |
intended for development. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
Best regards, |
| 37 |
Michał Górny |
Archives