On 1 June 2012 14:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
>> Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent'
>> header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other
>> than a fast-forward.
>>
>> If that SHA1 changes, the g
On Thu, 31 May 2012 16:27:48 -0400
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 05/31/12 16:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
> > Rich Freeman wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny
> >> wrote:
> >>> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would al
On Thu, 31 May 2012 17:04:30 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
> > William Hubbs wrote:
> > > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that
> > > > I'm a git novice. Would this b
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Kent Fredric wrote:
> Just I haven't worked out what happens when the SHA1 of the 'parent'
> header changes, which *will* change if the rebase is anything other
> than a fast-forward.
>
> If that SHA1 changes, the gpg signature will surely fail?
Rebasing doesn't m
William Hubbs wrote:
> To clarify: we should only allow fast-forward merges on master.
Not a dev yet, but +1
pgpYLlPixexJM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
On 1 June 2012 08:26, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
> Of course, if all the official overlays are converted to git branches of
> the main tree... but won't they still require rebasing as they've already
> been pushed? (
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:23:31PM +0100, Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
> William Hubbs wrote:
> > > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
> > > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only
> > > committing to master on the
On 1 June 2012 07:58, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
>> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
>> have to be signed once again?
>>
>
> The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either
> good or bad based
On 1 June 2012 07:52, Alexey Shvetsov wrote:
>>
>> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
>> have to be signed once again?
>
>
> Commits itsels still will be signed
Do you know how git does this? Do you have experience/information you
can cite as to that this works?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 03:58:43PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
> > have to be signed once again?
> >
>
> The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is eit
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:26:58PM +, Duncan wrote:
> William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
>
> I don't know what's going to happen to all the overlays with the main
> tree switch to git, but won't that break various "overlay first"
> policies, say for the kde
On 05/31/12 16:09, Michał Górny wrote:
> On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny
>> wrote:
>>> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
>>> have to be signed once again?
>>>
>>
>> The whole point of re
William Hubbs posted on Thu, 31 May 2012 14:54:50 -0500 as excerpted:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:42PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
>> - You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
>> - You have already pushed it to your github, signed
>
> If I have a github tree, that wou
On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:58:43 -0400
Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny
> wrote:
> > What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
> > have to be signed once again?
> >
>
> The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
> What would git signing work with rebased commits? Would all of them
> have to be signed once again?
>
The whole point of rebasing is to throw away history (which is either
good or bad based on your perspective).
So, if 14 devs spend 3 years
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:13:42PM +, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
> - You have already pushed it to your github, signed
If I have a github tree, that would probably be because I didn't have
push access to the official tree, so signi
Michał Górny писал 2012-05-31 23:33:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson
> wrote:
> > 1.
> > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would
> > dis
# Michael Sterrett (31 May 2012)
# No longer needed.
# Masked for removal on 20120630
games-util/nforenum
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson
> > wrote:
> > > 1.
> > > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would
> > > disallow merge commits, so that
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> - You have a commit, that you want to put into the Gentoo tree.
> - You have already pushed it to your github, signed
> - It needs to be merged/rebased so that it applies on the Gentoo tree.
> - If you force it to be a rebase so it applies
On Thu, 31 May 2012 14:18:04 -0500
William Hubbs wrote:
> > Not sure I'm following, but I will be the first to admit that I'm a
> > git novice. Would this be aided by a convention, like only
> > committing to master on the gentoo official repository, and any
> > on-the-side work on places like gi
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > 1.
> > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
> > commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that
> > if
> >
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 01:48:29PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > 1.
> > Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
> > commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that
> > if
> >
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:49 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> 1.
> Discussion on merge policy. Originally I thought we would disallow merge
> commits, so that we would get a cleaner history. However, it turns out that if
> the repo ends up being pushed to different places with slightly different
> h
Michał Górny wrote:
>
> There is a number of virtuals in Gentoo which switching active
> implementation via eselect. However, most of the packages being
> 'alternative providers' don't seem to care about eselect at all. Is
> that the correct thing to do, or maybe should every package ensure
> tha
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 08:04:10AM -0400, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> On 05/30/2012 04:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> > On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson
> > wrote:
> >> No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly
> >> often:
> >> http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.o
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 10:31:06PM +0200, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> > No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly often:
> > http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary
> Since you seem to kn
A function which determines correct .la files for removal and removes
them.
---
gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass | 92 -
1 file changed, 91 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass b/gx86/eclass/eutils.eclass
index c88ef35..b0399ac
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> The 6 hours it takes to clone the repo.
IIRC someone already proposed that the packed repo could be offered
via normal download (or even BitTorrent).
Cheers,
Dirkjan
Aaron W. Swenson wrote:
> > what *you* think are hard blockers for the migration?
>
> The 6 hours it takes to clone the repo.
Maybe clone on server and distribute the initial repo as tarball.
//Peter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 05/30/2012 04:31 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Robin H. Johnson
> wrote:
>> No, the last mock conversion is still live and updating fairly
>> often:
>> http://git-exp.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.g
On Thu, 31 May 2012 02:09:11 -0400
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> yet, if you read the actual code, you'll see:
> + [[ ${#} -le 1 ]] || die "Invalid number of args to
> ${FUNCNAME}()"
> + if [[ ${#} -eq 1 ]]; then
> + ...
> + fi
>
> that means if more than 1 argument is passed, no error
32 matches
Mail list logo
