| 1 |
On 24 August 2011 18:48, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 12:07 Wed 24 Aug , wiktor w brodlo wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 24 August 2011 04:16, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> > On 23:00 Mon 22 Aug , wiktor w brodlo wrote: |
| 5 |
>> >> I will also continue my never-ending quest of slimming Anaconda down |
| 6 |
>> >> as there's still a lot of dead/useless code in the tree (but figuring |
| 7 |
>> >> out what can go and what should stay is a task on its own). |
| 8 |
>> > |
| 9 |
>> > Wiktor, |
| 10 |
>> > |
| 11 |
>> > lxnay was kind enough to point out that removing "dead" code will make |
| 12 |
>> > it extremely hard to rebase your work upon upstream changes. How do you |
| 13 |
>> > propose to deal with that? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> Maybe not *extremely* hard. These days Anaconda development, both in |
| 16 |
>> Fedora and in Sabayon, isn't exactly lightening-fast, so I think |
| 17 |
>> following their development and merging back any nice changes |
| 18 |
>> systematically won't take up too much time. I always thought that I'd |
| 19 |
>> just keep their respective git repos locally and if there are any |
| 20 |
>> changes, look at what they do and determine if they're of any use to |
| 21 |
>> Gentoo. This way, only the changes done to the files that we also have |
| 22 |
>> will be merged back in, and then only if they affect our installer - |
| 23 |
>> for example, yum, Fedora repos, Entropy (Sabayon's package manager) |
| 24 |
>> etc support is totally unneeded in Gentoo so there's no point even |
| 25 |
>> bothering ourselves with changes to those parts, so I don't see any |
| 26 |
>> point in keeping this code. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> You think manually inspecting all commits is worth it? Seems like `git |
| 29 |
> pull --rebase` would be a lot easier. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
That would work too ;-) |
| 32 |
Though having a look at the commits before the pull is a good idea by itself. |
Archives