Jeroen Roovers posted on Tue, 23 Apr 2013 20:00:53 +0200 as excerpted: > On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:46:14 +0000 (UTC) > Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > >> Alexis Ballier posted on Mon, 22 Apr 2013 15:40:33 +0200 as excerpted: >> > I don't see how git helps. You'll have to commit twice then push, vs >> > commit twice with cvs. >> >> But git commits are quite lightweight, while as someone already pointed >> out, cvs commits, if done properly with repoman, are anything but. > > Er, you can't be seriously suggesting we will drop repoman checks with > the migration to git? I don't see how that would benefit anyone.
Rich and others have already covered it, but since it was my post you replied to with the question, I'll confirm, what they said was what I had in mind... Just because you're doing a git commit doesn't mean you're doing a push to the main infra-hosted tree. Individual git commits are as I said, (very) light weight, making even a five-minute "autosave" commit process entirely feasible on the local working branch. (Presumably, if one were to do that, a rebase would be done condensing all those auto-saves into a single atomic commit at the next higher branch level... branches too being /very/ lightweight with git, thus enabling an auto-save branch, a session-save branch, an atomic-commit branch..., with each of these possible for each of a dozen different individual projects a dev might be undertaking in parallel... no problem from a git perspective!) But repoman has little to do with them since all it cares about is that the rules are followed when the changes get pushed to the tree. Commit/ branch all you want locally, then run repoman on the "upstreaming" branch before the push to infra (or to a public overlay or whatever, if an overlay is being used as an intermediate step). -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
