| 1 |
On 24 August 2011 04:16, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 23:00 Mon 22 Aug , wiktor w brodlo wrote: |
| 3 |
>> I will also continue my never-ending quest of slimming Anaconda down |
| 4 |
>> as there's still a lot of dead/useless code in the tree (but figuring |
| 5 |
>> out what can go and what should stay is a task on its own). |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Wiktor, |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> lxnay was kind enough to point out that removing "dead" code will make |
| 10 |
> it extremely hard to rebase your work upon upstream changes. How do you |
| 11 |
> propose to deal with that? |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Maybe not *extremely* hard. These days Anaconda development, both in |
| 14 |
Fedora and in Sabayon, isn't exactly lightening-fast, so I think |
| 15 |
following their development and merging back any nice changes |
| 16 |
systematically won't take up too much time. I always thought that I'd |
| 17 |
just keep their respective git repos locally and if there are any |
| 18 |
changes, look at what they do and determine if they're of any use to |
| 19 |
Gentoo. This way, only the changes done to the files that we also have |
| 20 |
will be merged back in, and then only if they affect our installer - |
| 21 |
for example, yum, Fedora repos, Entropy (Sabayon's package manager) |
| 22 |
etc support is totally unneeded in Gentoo so there's no point even |
| 23 |
bothering ourselves with changes to those parts, so I don't see any |
| 24 |
point in keeping this code. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
~ wiktor. |
Archives