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 1QRvP9-00028f-5O for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 00:04:51 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C01191C06C for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 00:04:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B80821C0B8 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 23:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-vw0-f53.google.com (mail-vw0-f53.google.com [209.85.212.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: mattst88) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1FD071B4008 for ; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 23:37:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: by vws13 with SMTP id 13so331378vws.40 for ; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.176.3 with SMTP id ce3mr60864vdc.313.1306971446064; Wed, 01 Jun 2011 16:37:26 -0700 (PDT) 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 Received: by 10.52.165.101 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Jun 2011 16:37:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4DE6CB57.5080709@gentoo.org> References: <4DD24EBE.5060002@gentoo.org> <201106011739.45691.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201106011824.06028.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <4DE6CB57.5080709@gentoo.org> From: Matt Turner Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2011 19:37:06 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 0c6ea0bdee6a00245e7b812e6f25a31d On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto wrote: > To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git. > However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave us > in the same state. Assuming everyone agrees that git is far more useful > than cvs to check for changes in the tree, a simple but important issue > remains: the plan is to move the "development tree" to git, but to keep > the rsync mirrors for users. So the "move to git" doesn't fix the issue > for users or developers using an rsync tree. Temporarily or permanently? One of the huge benefits in using git would be really fast emerge --syncs. Not having some kind of system for migrating users to git seems like a lot of the benefits are lost. Matt