see http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/soc/glep-0052.txt and
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/42044/match=
On 1/17/07, Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Quoting "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2. See the results (and as-yet unpublished GLEP) of Antarus's
Quoting "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2. See the results (and as-yet unpublished GLEP) of Antarus's Summer of
Code research into VCS migrations.
Where can I see these results?
The Gentoo SOC page only has a link to Planet Gentoo, Planet Gentoo
has a link to a dead blog (http://scri
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 12:09:30AM +0100, R?mi Cardona wrote:
> Because atomic commits don't exist in CVS, the scripts rely on
> commit/modification dates to recreate atomic commits in svn/git.
> Unfortunately, in some not-so-rare cases, it can definitely mess things
> up, and Gnome folks took abou
Steve Long wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> My personal view (not infra) on it, is that I'm mostly negative about
>> changing VCS at all - I would prefer not to change, because the status
>> quo works very well as it is. If a change is going to be made, it should
>> be taken as a chance to resol
On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 05:36:34PM -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> The conversion to GIT from CVS was also lengthy (approximately two
> weeks) althought many projects attempted a switch this summer and
> tools have improved in speed.
Yes, the speed has increased a _lot_ now. In fact yesterday som
On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:12:21 +, Steve Long wrote:
> Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> My personal view (not infra) on it, is that I'm mostly negative about
>> changing VCS at all - I would prefer not to change, because the status
>> quo works very well as it is. If a change is going to be made, it sh
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:14:41AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | You get conflicts with CVS already in that case, it's not going to
> | increase the number of conflicts in any way.
> Except that with CVS, you just update that one directory, which isn't
> particularly painful even for all the ar
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 01:06:31 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
| > | The other points were valid, but if it works anything like
| > | Gentoo, I think this is BS. Sure, everyone commits to the same
| > | tree, but n
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 08:38:34AM +, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> | The other points were valid, but if it works anything like Gentoo, I
> | think this is BS. Sure, everyone commits to the same tree, but not to
> | the same lines of the same file. Unless all they do over in BSD-land
> | is globa
On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 09:03:59AM +0100, Markus Ullmann wrote:
> >1. Git currently requires you to check out the whole repository.
> > This includes *all of the history*.
> >2. Git cannot update portions of the repository, it can only update
> > the entire thing.
>
> This was one of the big r
On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 00:30:39 -0800 Donnie Berkholz
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| Markus Ullmann wrote:
| > And the last thing was the idea about distribution. There is one
| > "centrally" maintained tree and people commit to it all day. So the
| > chance of getting conflicts in pushes if one is on
Markus Ullmann wrote:
And the last thing was the idea about distribution. There is one
"centrally" maintained tree and people commit to it all day. So the
chance of getting conflicts in pushes if one is on tour for three days
would be very likely and so the distributed part of the VCs wouldn't
Donnie Berkholz schrieb:
Greg KH wrote:
What was the reasons he cited?
Given that ports is pretty similar to our gentoo-x86, I'd guess about
the same ones mentioned at
http://dev.gentoo.org/~antarus/projects/gleps/glep-0666.txt -- I quote
from there:
1. Git currently requires you to check
13 matches
Mail list logo
