Re: [proaudio] Git migration

[Karl Lindén <spray.sucks@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.

Regards,
Karl

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