2013/7/29 Keen Blade <[email protected]>: > I like git more than svn. I have no objection to migrate. They are both very > nice to work with. Svn served great till now, and I still I have no > complain. > Dominique, I liked your idea: "we can purge all of them at the exception of > 1 or 2 examples to show the file hierarchy". > Or we can purge all of them and use overlay masks for the experimental > stuff. > > Well, I have not any objection against a migration either. For the mask idea see below.
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Dominique Michel > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Le Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:38:20 +0200, >> Dominique Michel <[email protected]> a écrit : >> >> > Le Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:06:14 +0200, >> > Karl Lindén <[email protected]> a écrit : >> > >> > > Hi all! >> > > >> > > Some time ago there was some discussion about whether the proaudio >> > > overlay should migrate to git. Would it make sense to do such a >> > > migration or would it be too much work for now? >> > > >> > > What are the arguments that support such a change? Furthermore, what >> > > are the arguments against? >> > > >> > > One supportive argument is that pull requests or equivalent are >> > > pretty nifty. On the contrary, SVN is (in my opinion) pretty nice >> > > to work with, but that is not a strictly technical argument. >> > >> > I use both svn and git, and for a so simple project, the only >> > "advantage" I can see with git is it is never. Which is not a >> > technical argument either. We can now argue about the never, the >> > better. >> > >> > And well, I use a test overlay for my personal ebuilds and to work on >> > the pro-audio ebuilds. If I have 2 ebuilds with the same name, emerge >> > will use the one in my test overlay, and I see no simpler way to do >> > the same with a private git branch. >> > >> > Also, my test overlay include things that have nothing to do with the >> > pro-audio overlay, so it is no point for me to include it in some >> > private git branch. >> > >> > So well, I have no use for git with pro-audio, and I am just fine with >> > svn. >> >> But if someone can show he/she have an use case for a git repository in >> the context of the overlay, I will have no objection to migrate. >> I agree. >> > >> > Also, the proaudio-dev branch can be used to put experimental or >> > broken ebuilds, so that every body can look at them. For now, it is >> > old stuffs in it, a real mess with no ChangeLog associated with the >> > ebuilds, but nobody stop anyone to use it. It would be best to put >> > ChangeLog files with new ebuilds here, with comments to explain what >> > the issue is. >> > >> > Know someone what the ebuilds in proaudio-dev are? and if yes, can >> > ChangeLog files be added. If not, we can purge all of them at the >> > exception of 1 or 2 examples to show the file hierarchy. Or purge all >> > of them and add a README. >> > I'm pro-purge, but as keenblade suggested we can choose to use package.mask for experimental ebuilds. I support the package.mask idea, mainly because it is what the way it is done in the main tree. Anyway, even if we agree to use the package.mask I feel that the proaudio-dev tree can be purged right away. Regards, Karl >> > Dominique >> > >> > > >> > > Thanks for your thoughts! >> > > >> > > Regards, >> > > Karl >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >> >> -- >> "We have the heroes we deserve." >> >> > > > > -- > Anyway it's all the same at the end...
