On 7/23/06, Hans-Werner Hilse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 02:42:43 -0600
"Trenton Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I proposed this awhile back, and got shot down. At the time, the
> arguments for using SVN for portage storage were pretty shallow, and
> someone was able to easily shoot them down. I believe I have come up
> with better reasoning for using SVN. Someone may still shoot them
> down, but hey, it's worth a try.
#1:
You're aware that there's a CVS for portage, aren't you? I'm still not
quite sure if you are suggesting using SVN for the portage mirrors and
if you are suggesting that users also have a full SVN history on the
clients, too?
No, not a full history, just a tag history.
> PROBLEM 1
> [...]
> PROBLEM 2
> [...]
> PROBLEM 3
> [...]
Well, are those really problems at all? I mean, isn't it easy to
overcome them? Is it worth dedicating time and work into that svn thing?
I'm not sure, is it? Is there scripts already out there to overcome
the problems suggested? If there are, I would sure appreciate knowing
about them. :)
It could be a lack of my understanding how the portage downgrade
process works. But if you downgrade a package, will it downgrade all
the packages depending on that version as well?
> POTENTIAL ISSUES
> Now, I'm not entirely sure of the performance implications of
> subversion for this purpose. So, that would definitely have to either
> be tested, or someone would have to talk with the subversion folks to
> know if it would be a problem for thousands of users to access
> subversion in readonly mode.
Well, of course! There's definately a reason to use rsync.
> It would certainly be annoying for a
> developer to go "svn commit", and have to wait for half an hour
> because everyone else is updating their local copies. But, that could
> be solved by mirrors only getting updated once every day, at 12
> midnight.
Oh, yeah. Your midnight, my midnight? It would definately be annoying
to make a small glitch and have to wait >24hrs until the fix for that
gets promoted. The "problem" you mentioned that at some points there
are slightly errorneous ebuilds in portage or minor inconsistencies can
only be fixed by promoting updates fast.
That's true, and I suppose that's not quite as good as what exists
right now. But does gentoo really have less than 24 hour bug fix turn
arounds?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
