From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FsGy5-00080G-Vw for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:26:54 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with SMTP id k5JANwSx000671; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:23:58 GMT Received: from zaz.kom.auc.dk (zaz.kom.auc.dk [130.225.51.10]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.7/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k5JAD9oc020549 for ; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 10:13:09 GMT Received: from pc163-c.stud.ies.auc.dk ([10.8.12.163]) by zaz.kom.auc.dk with esmtp (Exim 2.05 #3) id 1FsGkl-0004Zu-00 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:13:07 +0200 From: Bo =?iso-8859-1?q?=D8rsted_Andresen?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] portage and rsync vs svn Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:13:42 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <9b1675090606190058o68552c60ge214d179522cccd5@mail.gmail.com> <200606191050.52681.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> <9b1675090606190158r260b6340q2c009f0cb83a68b0@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9b1675090606190158r260b6340q2c009f0cb83a68b0@mail.gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart5217371.UHTbe30dPc"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200606191213.53725.bo.andresen@zlin.dk> X-Archives-Salt: a218a7b1-20bf-4da0-bdde-6861f0194fe1 X-Archives-Hash: 09cad6e0d6a96e98f058a134a9f0ae5d --nextPart5217371.UHTbe30dPc Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Monday 19 June 2006 10:58, Trenton Adams wrote: > > > 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 fi= le > > a bug so the problems can be fixed for everyone. > > Well, one problem I had was not actually *really* bug. It was a > requirement that I did not fulfill, but was unable to figure it out > instantly. So, rolling back would have been very useful at that time. > It would just add another level of safety. If an ebuild is removed from the tree while you still need it then chances = are=20 that others need it too. Then it is indeed a bug. If you need an ebuild tha= t=20 has been removed from the tree it is available from the cvs [1]. As mention= ed=20 in my previous mail cvs is going to be replaced by a superior VCS hopefully= =20 within this year. [1] http://www.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi =2D-=20 Bo Andresen --nextPart5217371.UHTbe30dPc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBElnjh8/kKEzmwNNoRAmudAKDBkHpn+143iTkGS9aI0ahEddbe1wCgs20J qDXkbt0iznQyV9ZCDFINEy8= =ZRmX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart5217371.UHTbe30dPc-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list