On 5/4/06, Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 11:44 +0100, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> From a SCM point of view, arches are a subset of the full Gentoo
> tree. They would fit very well into a branching model - and
> Subversion's support for branching would make it a breeze for us to
> support without overloading the arch teams.
Are you kidding me? What about people that commit for multiple arches?
They're now going to have to do the same commit over $x number of trees?
How exactly will that not overload the arch teams?
Talking about an SVN perspective ... provided the trees live in a
single repository (which would make a lot of sense), it would be very
straightforward to provide a tool to copy a particular ebuild & its
files from an unstable tree simultaneously to the other trees. The
difficulties with such a tool would be taking over the right files/
contents (something which is solveable), and what to do about signing
(where a distribtued system like Git probably makes much more sense
anyway).
Given such a tool, you could promote a version of a package to any
number of per-arch trees at the same time.
The more I hear about all of these great features of qall of these
alternative SCM's, the more I think that somebody just has a hard-on for
getting rid of CVS and plans on doing it, no matter the cost to
efficiency and other developers.
What we're talking about here is a step in the development cycle
commonly called 'integration', where something's taken from the
development bucket, put into the 'release' bucket, and tested to
ensure that it plays nice with everything else already in the
'release' bucket. It should be listed in RUP, CMM, or whatever
development methodology you use locally in your day job.
Adopting this approach would be far more painful with CVS than with
(say) subversion. Branch management in subversion is infinitely
easier than with CVS.
Best regards,
Stu
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
