On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
> i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
> [1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2].
>
> There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
> access to the portage tree.
The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via
git-cvsserver:
1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts
- Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down a
fairly large packfile.
2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS)
If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1.
> "Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
> rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
> magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
> duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive load).
1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do initial
clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download.
2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it.
--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robb...@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
