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 1SaB57-0007dl-7m for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:30:49 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BB45E081E; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-bk0-f53.google.com (mail-bk0-f53.google.com [209.85.214.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B173E07AB for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 19:29:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: by bkcjk13 with SMTP id jk13so1341929bkc.40 for ; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=lPBDRHuwQQB7p9siGjh4yXh+Fd6orHrMT3GIZ5Jc7ZE=; b=x/HCRUN2uexBXeHtoHDHBFewozxDYpr37c6l43q9x4g8NsAb4XHUbeXp+LBKeay4cT YLsKPny2D0zSBInDdHmBk7hXSbRyKfzvGPMgUR11zkH5YAUO6AqU0Ij7wrAoI91anaVr VJe2Krz/ebdAWVONjs+ySlbAgoTZ1Q5YNK9tLEd02F5Hh5ZgWVhk63rOImHRd1d8nHNt 9vA/69kj8UMB7M/aJAW78wIhUUnbas/cJZw0Y484LEKFc5DwU18OrIe/HmgbSVobvzpr L1o1X761jeHP/xHigIPi89C5/Jbm4wJT2IF4taNVNJlrkm7MXpQ+5bdlihOHmO4n6SFB 83jQ== 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 10.204.153.15 with SMTP id i15mr12824912bkw.74.1338492586157; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: freemanrich@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.149.211 with HTTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:29:46 -0400 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QlNp08vKYMoQY95hoFOsiUy4SZI Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver From: Rich Freeman To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 5da2b34b-e04a-47e5-b314-e526ba6f3ac5 X-Archives-Hash: 5e1f6c0768a145c93a7df82e6ba78bac On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrot= e: > - You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree. > - You have already pushed it to your github, signed > - It needs to be merged/rebased so that it applies on the Gentoo tree. > - If you force it to be a rebase so it applies on the tip, then you may > =A0have changed the history of your github tree, and broken any further > =A0forks. > - If you permit a merge instead, nobody gets broken. Maybe the best compromise is to tell people that if you push to "master" on other repositories, you get to deal with the mess. If we try to keep side overlays/etc working on branches and not on master then there will be no history to rewrite, as the merge will be rebased when it hits the official master, and from there it will get pulled by other repositories. We can perhaps allow merge commits on other branches, where the continuity of history is less important. Does that make sense? > You'd be excluding me entirely, I need to use git-svn for other work > projects, and emerging between two different versions of git would be > very annoying (I switch constantly between the sides of work as they > overlap). I'm a big proponent of letting the people doing the work scratch their own itches first! However, this does make us dependent on upstream - is there any sense of when they'll be ready, or what their own priority is for this issue. If this is becoming a deprecated feature then I'm not sure we can tie our future to it. I wasn't sure if any of the existing git-svn bugs pertained to this issue. Either way we should add this as a blocker to the git migration tracker. I think that even if we made a big push it would still take us a month or two to be ready with docs/infra/etc, and that might be optimistic. So, this might not be rate-limiting if upstream is actively working on it. Rich