This is the mail archive of the libc-ports@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the libc-ports project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: onwards to git


On Monday 04 May 2009 16:58:21 Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> On Mon, May 04, 2009 at 04:18:51PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 May 2009 08:58:58 Thomas Schwinge wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 11:55:26AM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Thursday 30 April 2009 11:00:42 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > > > I think it's just going to make more work for the maintainers of
> > > > > each individual port.  Mostly, they just keep working.  It'll also
> > > > > be a pain for multi-platform distributors like Debian, who will
> > > > > have to do the merge anyway.
> > > >
> > > > it's also a pain for people who like to have 1 source tree and switch
> > > > between targets on the fly with only different configure targets.  or
> > > > for people who want to quickly search all ports for how they handle
> > > > some feature.
> > > >
> > > > i really dont see any upside to this.  the proposed rebasing aspect
> > > > is a complete wash: public git repos should never have their pushed
> > > > history rebased, and local rebasing of the entire ports tree vs a
> > > > single arch is exactly the same considering the repo is so small.
> > >
> > > Mike, cool down.
> >
> > i dont know what you're talking about
> >
> > > I was merely making a proposal.
> >
> > and i was pointing out reasons why it was a bad idea.  if you think
> > people disagreeing with you means they're angry or something, then you'll
> > have to rethink how proposals work on mailing lists.
>
> If there are valid technical reasons to prefer another approach over mine
> then that is very fine with me, as I said already.
>
> But saying that my proposal ``is a complete wash'' and basing this
> statement by putting words into my mouth that I didn't even say (``have
> their pushed history rebased'') is not what I call a constructive
> discussion.

you ignored the actual context ... in fact, you deleted the entire conditional 
clause of the statement: "the proposed rebasing aspect".

there is no realistic difference in rebasing a tiny tree like the entire ports 
repo compared to one specific port in the repo.  they are both very small 
chunks of code and any port-specific repo should only have changes for that 
one port in it.  thus any rebasing work would only ever apply to that one 
arch, and the speed differences are irrelevant.  especially considering 
rebasing of much much larger repos are pretty damn fast.
-mike

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]