Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn

["Bo Ørsted Andresen" <bo.andresen@zlin.dk>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1318 bytes --]

On Monday 19 June 2006 09:58, Trenton Adams wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I'm just curious about something.  I've noticed many people report
> problems with their repository syncing simply because someone was in
> the middle of committing to the repository.  Couldn't this be resolved
> by replacing the syncing mechanism with *svn* as opposed to rsync?
> After all, it does have atomic transactions, and you cannot get a
> partially updated repository when you use it.

Perhaps it could. But I don't think that problem is important enough to make 
Portage usage depend on Subversion. 

[...]

> One other benefit of this mechanism, that I can think of, would be
> that I could easily roll back to my last sync date or release, if some
> of the updated ebuilds caused me problems.

That really should not be necessary. What you should of course do is file a 
bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone.

> Any thoughts?

Currently the developers are still using CVS for the tree. Migrating to 
another VCS does have a high priority but they have not even chosen which VCS 
to migrate to. There is a Google Summer of Code project which is supposed to 
test the different options to give a good basis for making a decision. This, 
however, affects the Gentoo developers only.

-- 
Bo Andresen

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]