On 23.05.2012 18:47, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote: >> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git" >> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2]. >> >> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write >> access to the portage tree. > The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via > git-cvsserver: > 1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts > - Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down a > fairly large packfile. > 2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS) > > If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1. > >> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp, >> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some >> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours >> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load). > 1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do initial > clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download. > 2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it. >
Was this a vote for or against a quick proceeding towards git? You are probably the one who can judge best if the infra side could be made ready soonish.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
