On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 09:04:33AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote: > On Mon, 4 Jun 2012 15:57:53 -0700 > Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Btw, good catch on package.mask. Hhadn't thought of that, that > > *will* be the most contentious point. That can be dealt w/ via > > having git on portage-1 profile format so we'd have package.mask as > > directories (which Ciaran will validly hate, and I won't like > > due to having to write the portage-1 -> PMS translater for > > rsync distribution), or coming up w/ a different way to split the > > commits across multiple files, rather than a single. > > That doesn't like a 'lesser evil' to me. I'd rather see those few > conflicts and fix them once in a while rather than having to lookup > multiple package.mask files with entries split in a semi-random manner.
The rate of package.mask commits was calculated yesterday- it's around 4.5 a day. Non issue, move along... ~harring
