On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 04:14:38 -0700 Brian Harring <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One other thing that needs discussion imo, is how such a scheme would > work for non integer based revnos- git for example, which is reliant > on a hash (just the hash, afaik).
Neither Luca's proposal nor -scm even attempts to address anything to do with upstream revisions. Whilst doing so would be useful, it's considerably more work. There's another proposal floating around that lets -scm be extended to deal with upstream revisions too, but from an amount-of-work perspective it's highly unlikely that Portage will be able to deliver that stage of it any time soon -- the -scm proposal is designed to fit in nicely with the way ebuilds currently handle live packages, whilst not requiring much effort to implement. Being realistic here, -scm is something that's deliverable and useful in a relatively short timeframe, but extending it to upstream-revision awareness isn't. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
