On Friday 23 December 2011 16:49:46 Michał Górny wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 22:09:26 +0100 Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > >>>>> On Fri, 23 Dec 2011, Michał Górny wrote: > > > Fixes: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=395247 > > > > > > + git clean -d -f -x || die "${FUNCNAME}: failed to > > > clean checkout dir" + > > > > Why should there be untracked files, in the first place? (In the > > "steps to reproduce" of bug 395247 such files are explicitly generated > > by the user, which doesn't look like a valid usage case to me.) > > Yes, it is invalid. Yet I think it's better to clean up just in case > upstream pulling gone wrong (e.g. when upstream does rebase).
obviously i disagree. the point is to not duplicate both the network traffic and the on-disk storage between the repos i've already checked out and portage (i buy dedicated disks for my source code and it fills up quickly ... often times faster than my music collection :P). imo, the git eclass shouldn't be modifying that repo at all. instead, it should be treating it merely as an object store and then cloning it with something like --reference. if you want to create a new variable for these semantics, that's fine (although kind of pointless i think since this clearly isn't widely used), but the point of having these per-package repo overrides in the first place was to easily share already checked out repos with portage. -mike
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
