| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
| 5 |
> It does if you're Joe User (or Joe Proxy-Maintainer) and you don't want |
| 6 |
> a 1G+ git clone of the whole tree so you can developer 1 package for |
| 7 |
> your local repo. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
As Robin mentioned, overlays already do this without any of the |
| 10 |
downsides associated with splitting the tree into 12000+ git repos. |
| 11 |
Also, overlays have more flexibility because they're not limited to a |
| 12 |
single package (although they can contain just a single one if |
| 13 |
necessary), so I'd imagine developing and sharing 20+ ebuilds at once |
| 14 |
will be much easier to manage in an existing overlay, than in 20+ git |
| 15 |
submodules cloned from the main tree. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I wouldn't expect Joe User/Proxy-Maintainer to have much to do with the |
| 18 |
git tree, much as I don't think many users/proxy-maintainers use CVS |
| 19 |
over rsync. So if the git capability were in conjunction with overlays, |
| 20 |
I don't know how popular it'd be, and if it's not in conjunction, it |
| 21 |
seems like discarding a working mechanism for something untested... |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Mike 5:) |
| 24 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 25 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkkUF6AACgkQu7rWomwgFXp+aQCfV3SkI7GOFw5322cwTpLrgykQ |
| 28 |
6bIAoI8y9VZOF0tEvoI5GfpelYw+ujg7 |
| 29 |
=le4h |
| 30 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives