Thanks for the reply. Interspersed comments below...
On 6/19/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Monday 19 June 2006 09:58, Trenton Adams wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm just curious about something. I've noticed many people report
> problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in
> the middle of committing to the repository. Couldn't this be resolved
> by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync?
> After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a
> partially updated repository when you use it.
Perhaps it could. But I don't think that problem is important enough to make
Portage usage depend on Subversion.
Well, it wouldn't have to *depend* on subversion. The rsync could
still be used. All that would need to happen is that the location
that people would be able to rsync with could be checked out
regularly. Then the rsync could have an exclude for the ".svn"
directories, or whatever administrative directories there would be,
depending on the VCS you use.
[...]
> One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be
> that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some
> of the updated ebuilds caused me problems.
That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a
bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone.
Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a
requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out
instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time.
It would just add another level of safety.
> Any thoughts?
Currently the developers are still using CVS for the tree. Migrating to
another VCS does have a high priority but they have not even chosen which VCS
to migrate to. There is a Google Summer of Code project which is supposed to
test the different options to give a good basis for making a decision. This,
however, affects the Gentoo developers only.
--
Bo Andresen
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
