1 |
Thanks for the reply. Interspersed comments below... |
2 |
|
3 |
On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <bo.andresen@××××.dk> wrote: |
4 |
> On Monday 19 June 2006 09:58, Trenton Adams wrote: |
5 |
> > Hi guys, |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > I'm just curious about something. I've noticed many people report |
8 |
> > problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in |
9 |
> > the middle of committing to the repository. Couldn't this be resolved |
10 |
> > by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync? |
11 |
> > After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a |
12 |
> > partially updated repository when you use it. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Perhaps it could. But I don't think that problem is important enough to make |
15 |
> Portage usage depend on Subversion. |
16 |
|
17 |
Well, it wouldn't have to *depend* on subversion. The rsync could |
18 |
still be used. All that would need to happen is that the location |
19 |
that people would be able to rsync with could be checked out |
20 |
regularly. Then the rsync could have an exclude for the ".svn" |
21 |
directories, or whatever administrative directories there would be, |
22 |
depending on the VCS you use. |
23 |
|
24 |
> |
25 |
> [...] |
26 |
> |
27 |
> > One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be |
28 |
> > that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some |
29 |
> > of the updated ebuilds caused me problems. |
30 |
> |
31 |
> That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a |
32 |
> bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. |
33 |
|
34 |
Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a |
35 |
requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out |
36 |
instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. |
37 |
It would just add another level of safety. |
38 |
|
39 |
> |
40 |
> > Any thoughts? |
41 |
> |
42 |
> Currently the developers are still using CVS for the tree. Migrating to |
43 |
> another VCS does have a high priority but they have not even chosen which VCS |
44 |
> to migrate to. There is a Google Summer of Code project which is supposed to |
45 |
> test the different options to give a good basis for making a decision. This, |
46 |
> however, affects the Gentoo developers only. |
47 |
> |
48 |
> -- |
49 |
> Bo Andresen |
50 |
> |
51 |
> |
52 |
> |
53 |
|
54 |
-- |
55 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |