On Wed, 5 Sep 2012 11:49:03 +0100 Ciaran McCreesh <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Sep 2012 12:45:16 +0200 > "Andreas K. Huettel" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > And yes, it is *very* unlikely that someone uses a slotted live > > > ebuild with two branches being meaningful and managed in the same > > > repo. Even if such thing exists, it is broken anyway because you > > > can't say that re-fetching the branches back and forth is a > > > correct solution. And it breaks existing tools anyway. > > > > This is done large-scale for all KDE ebuilds (in the KDE overlay) to > > support master and KDE/4.x stable branch. Most use git, so no > > problem; some (still) use subversion but will be migrated upstream > > soon(?). > > > > Other examples are libreoffice (main tree, git) and cups (main > > tree, subversion). > > I guess that's a pretty comprehensive "we need to do this properly" > then. Did I say we don't need to? We have the two eclasses which need to do this properly, right? So what's your problem? -- Best regards, Michał Górny
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
