On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Fabian Groffen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 27-08-2008 10:28:57 -0700, Robin H. Johnson wrote: >> On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 06:35:57PM +0200, Fabian Groffen wrote: >> > For that reason I'd pretty much prefer to keep the CVS Header in place, >> > unless there is a very good reason to remove it. >> As I wrote in the other thread, my reason for asking is that it's one of >> the things that doesn't have clear mapping in the Git world. As a side >> benefit, getting rid of it also makes the double-commit mess go away. > > For who is it a mess? Not for repoman users, I suppose, and everyone > should be using it, right? As the one who personally played with the > code in repoman that determines whether or not the "double commit" is > necessary, I think it's mostly a repoman internal problem. The commit > script problems put aside.
So you are saying we should do what? precompute the CVS header and inject it into $header$ ourselves take the checksums generate the manifest revert the $header$ change then commit the ebuild and manifest at once ? The only reason we have double commits right now is that the $header$ replacement is done by cvs at commit time so if we don't do two commits the checksums all break due to the substitution..how is that repoman's fault? > >> For your use case, it should be possible to just ask Git for updates to >> the given directory, and apply those to your own tree. > > Another VCS is another story. If we're switching, it would be nice if > the notion of overlays shadowing the main tree would be taken into > account. Especially since I don't think Prefix will "merge" any time > soon, but we are plagued by the thing called "growth". > > > -- > Fabian Groffen > Gentoo on a different level > >
