From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1SXEuc-0002qX-7Y for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:59:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 402CBE0653; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:59:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD872E080A for ; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:58:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from leo.local (ip-62-143-188-179.unitymediagroup.de [62.143.188.179]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: jlec) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C4CB31B400A; Wed, 23 May 2012 16:58:37 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4FBD1739.8050205@gentoo.org> Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 18:58:33 +0200 From: Justin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120501 Thunderbird/12.0.1 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver References: <4FBCDB3D.1070009@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.1 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigC5F3131762CB740E43A7B6D6" X-Archives-Salt: 64a7c623-9c1e-4ded-820f-6cb47d69559e X-Archives-Hash: d6355cc1d779a494442e0905237fb255 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enigC5F3131762CB740E43A7B6D6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23.05.2012 18:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: >> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git" >> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2]. >> >> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write >> access to the portage tree. > The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via > git-cvsserver: > 1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts > - Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down a= > fairly large packfile. > 2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS) >=20 > If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1. >=20 >> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp, >> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some >> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours >> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive lo= ad). > 1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do initial= > clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download. > 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it. >=20 Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git? You are probably the one who can judge best if the infra side could be made ready soonish. --------------enigC5F3131762CB740E43A7B6D6 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEAREKAAYFAk+9FzoACgkQgAnW8HDreRZxFACfR90kiV+g7Qow8A7VK0CpePG/ 74gAoLpEwTQoVNu7/KcoYg8wJewFtIGj =LzsJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enigC5F3131762CB740E43A7B6D6--