On Sun, 10 Apr 2016 18:21:44 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 04/10/2016 05:36 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> > Or you could just use a branching workflow like Git has great
> > support for, and create your overlay as a branch of the main tree
> > you're copying ebuilds from. With recent versions,
On 04/10/2016 05:36 PM, Gordon Pettey wrote:
> Or you could just use a branching workflow like Git has great support
> for, and create your overlay as a branch of the main tree you're copying
> ebuilds from. With recent versions, you can even have checkouts of
> different branches from the same tre
Or you could just use a branching workflow like Git has great support for,
and create your overlay as a branch of the main tree you're copying ebuilds
from. With recent versions, you can even have checkouts of different
branches from the same tree in different directories, so you're not
duplicating
On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 06:16:05PM +0200, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Why would you need $Id$ feature for this? "git ls-files -s" gives you
> the hash of the blob as well, is more efficient than grep, and even
> works recursively on a directory tree.
>
>$ git ls-files -s -- www-client/seamonkey/se
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2016, Lars Wendler wrote:
>>> > Yes, I still use these lines to check for ebuild changes between
>>> > portage and my personal overlay. So please keep this line.
> Enable the ident feature for *.ebuild files in git:
> $ cat ~/gentoo/.git/info/attributes
> *.ebuild ident
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:42:37PM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 14:43, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > We'd have to find all of those files and explicitly create .gitattribute
> > files, per directory, for them.
> I was under the impression that a .gitattribute file in the root
> di
On Sun, 3 Apr 2016 22:57:42 +0200 Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
>headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
>reason why they should be kept?
>
>In fact, the council had already voted to drop them in its 20141014
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Last time this came up, a sole example case was mentioned, but it
>> might have been buried.
>> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557386
> Infra left the $Id$ stubs in place f
On 4 April 2016 at 14:43, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> We'd have to find all of those files and explicitly create .gitattribute
> files, per directory, for them.
I was under the impression that a .gitattribute file in the root
directory sufficed?
( I maybe have misinterpreted what you said, but th
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
> > headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
> > reason why they should be kept?
> Las
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 4:57 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
> headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
> reason why they should be kept?
>
> In fact, the council had already voted to drop them in its 201410
On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 5:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>> > Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
>> > headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/03/2016 02:57 PM, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
>>> Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all
>>> ebuilds' headers, or
On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 09:03:59AM +1200, Kent Fredric wrote:
> On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> > Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
> > headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
> > reason why they should be kept?
>
>
On 4 April 2016 at 08:57, Ulrich Mueller wrote:
> Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
> headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
> reason why they should be kept?
Last time this came up, a sole example case was mentioned, but it
might h
Does anyone still use the CVS $Id$ keywords that are in all ebuilds'
headers, or are they being expanded anywhere? Or is there any other
reason why they should be kept?
In fact, the council had already voted to drop them in its 20141014
meeting:
Can we drop CVS headers post-migration?
Aye:
16 matches
Mail list logo
