Re: onwards to git

[Mike Frysinger <vapier at gentoo dot org>]

On Thursday 30 April 2009 11:00:42 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:47:43AM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:46 AM, Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > Just a suggestion from someone who isn't actively using the ports
> > > repository: why not have separate Git repositories for each individual
> > > port, and base these repositories on the [glibc]/master branch?  Doing
> > > so, the ports maintainers could periodically merge in [glibc]/master
> > > into their ports' branches (which may either be in a separate
> > > repository or in the main glibc repository), and it would also
> > > automatically be documented which port is maintained, which was the
> > > last version of [glibc]/master this port was tested with.
> >
> > I think this would be a great idea.
>
> I think it's just going to make more work for the maintainers of each
> individual port.  Mostly, they just keep working.  It'll also be a
> pain for multi-platform distributors like Debian, who will have to do
> the merge anyway.

it's also a pain for people who like to have 1 source tree and switch between 
targets on the fly with only different configure targets.  or for people who 
want to quickly search all ports for how they handle some feature.

i really dont see any upside to this.  the proposed rebasing aspect is a 
complete wash: public git repos should never have their pushed history 
rebased, and local rebasing of the entire ports tree vs a single arch is 
exactly the same considering the repo is so small.

as for seeing which ports are actually up to date, i dont think that offsets 
all the other downsides.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.