Le Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:37:46 +0200, Karl Lindén <[email protected]> a écrit :
> 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. I agree. And keenblade idea to use package.mask for experimental ebuilds is a good one. Ciao, Dominique > > Regards, > Karl > > >> > Dominique > >> > > >> > > > >> > > Thanks for your thoughts! > >> > > > >> > > Regards, > >> > > Karl > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> "We have the heroes we deserve." > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Anyway it's all the same at the end... > > -- "We have the heroes we deserve."
