Re: [proaudio] Git migration

[Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le Mon, 29 Jul 2013 19:37:46 +0200,
Karl Lindén <spray.sucks@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :

> 2013/7/29 Keen Blade <keenblade@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > I like git more than svn. I have no objection to migrate. They are
> > both very nice to work with. Svn served great till now, and I still
> > I have no complain.
> > Dominique, I liked your idea: "we can purge all of them at the
> > exception of 1 or 2 examples to show the file hierarchy".
> > Or we can purge all of them and use overlay masks for the
> > experimental stuff.
> >
> >
> Well, I have not any objection against a migration either. For the
> mask idea see below.
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:48 PM, Dominique Michel
> > <dominique.michel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le Mon, 29 Jul 2013 18:38:20 +0200,
> >> Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> >>
> >> > Le Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:06:14 +0200,
> >> > Karl Lindén <spray.sucks@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all!
> >> > >
> >> > > Some time ago there was some discussion about whether the
> >> > > proaudio overlay should migrate to git. Would it make sense to
> >> > > do such a migration or would it be too much work for now?
> >> > >
> >> > > What are the arguments that support such a change?
> >> > > Furthermore, what are the arguments against?
> >> > >
> >> > > One supportive argument is that pull requests or equivalent are
> >> > > pretty nifty. On the contrary, SVN is (in my opinion) pretty
> >> > > nice to work with, but that is not a strictly technical
> >> > > argument.
> >> >
> >> > I use both svn and git, and for a so simple project, the only
> >> > "advantage" I can see with git is it is never. Which is not a
> >> > technical argument either. We can now argue about the never, the
> >> > better.
> >> >
> >> > And well, I use a test overlay for my personal ebuilds and to
> >> > work on the pro-audio ebuilds. If I have 2 ebuilds with the same
> >> > name, emerge will use the one in my test overlay, and I see no
> >> > simpler way to do the same with a private git branch.
> >> >
> >> > Also, my test overlay include things that have nothing to do
> >> > with the pro-audio overlay, so it is no point for me to include
> >> > it in some private git branch.
> >> >
> >> > So well, I have no use for git with pro-audio, and I am just
> >> > fine with svn.
> >>
> >> But if someone can show he/she have an use case for a git
> >> repository in the context of the overlay, I will have no objection
> >> to migrate.
> >>
> I agree.
> 
> >> >
> >> > Also, the proaudio-dev branch can be used to put experimental or
> >> > broken ebuilds, so that every body can look at them. For now, it
> >> > is old stuffs in it, a real mess with no ChangeLog associated
> >> > with the ebuilds, but nobody stop anyone to use it. It would be
> >> > best to put ChangeLog files with new ebuilds here, with comments
> >> > to explain what the issue is.
> >> >
> >> > Know someone what the ebuilds in proaudio-dev are? and if yes,
> >> > can ChangeLog files be added. If not, we can purge all of them
> >> > at the exception of 1 or 2 examples to show the file hierarchy.
> >> > Or purge all of them and add a README.
> >> >
> I'm pro-purge, but as keenblade suggested we can choose to use
> package.mask for experimental ebuilds. I support the package.mask
> idea, mainly because it is what the way it is done in the main tree.
> Anyway, even if we agree to use the package.mask I feel that the
> proaudio-dev tree can be purged right away.

I agree. And keenblade idea to use package.mask for experimental
ebuilds is a good one.

Ciao,
Dominique

> 
> Regards,
> Karl
> 
> >> > Dominique
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks for your thoughts!
> >> > >
> >> > > Regards,
> >> > > Karl
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> "We have the heroes we deserve."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Anyway it's all the same at the end...
> 
> 


-- 
"We have the heroes we deserve."