On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 13:09:26 -0400 Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:45 PM, Andrew Savchenko <birc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? It > > was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. And > > kernel guys will likely disagree with "git is not great with crazy > > big projects" statement. > > The kernel tree that "everybody" uses has only a single committer - > Linus. That is definitely a potential challenge that we may run into > migrating gentoo-x86 - we have many committers and a fairly high > commit rate. > > With Linux you have a million separate git repos and everybody > cascades their changes up, which get merged into bigger and bigger > patch sets. So, Linus might get a set of updates to merge from the > video driver maintainer and it might contain 400 bundled commits, but > it isn't like the 400 committers have direct access to Linus's tree. > They all commit to their own trees and cascade up to the next level > via email. > > We already have a working method of migrating the entire portage > history to git. However, the infra tools/etc are all built around git > and only a few people have access to update them. The git repository > needs to make it out to the mirrors/etc. > > There are also a bunch of process-related details to work out. Does > everybody try to rebase onto master, or do we have lots of merges? > What happens if you do rebase onto master and then when you go to push > it isn't a fast-forward any longer because somebody else pushed first? > > But, for the most part we just need to get the back-end re-written to > work with a git repo. Actually migrating the tree itself to git is > largely a solved problem. Weren't we also waiting for some gpg signing stuff to land? -- Ryan Hill psn: dirtyepic_sk gcc-porting/toolchain/wxwidgets @ gentoo.org 47C3 6D62 4864 0E49 8E9E 7F92 ED38 BD49 957A 8463
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
