Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-alt
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-alt: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-alt@g.o
From: Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o>
Subject: Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2012 13:43:06 +0100
On 22-01-2012 15:13:07 +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> 
> 
> 22.01.2012, 00:55, "Fabian Groffen" <grobian@g.o>:
> > On 21-01-2012 23:44:18 +0400, Konstantin Tokarev wrote:
> >
> >>  Advantage: much faster emerge --sync
> >
> > proof?
> 
> Well... I realize that I should put some benchmark here, however
> I thought this is just a common sense. If you ever used git, you should
> know that e.g. if almost nothing has changed on remote (regular update),
> sync time will approach zero, but rsync always needs to iterate through
> all ebuilds to check if each file doesn't change separately.

robbat2 had some interesting stats on this that for the average user,
rsync will be actually more efficient.

> Funtoo was already mentioned; team of Calculate Linux reports that
> after they switched to git for portage syncing, speed increased significantly.

From what, rsync?  A developer's usage is different from a user's usage.

> >>  Possible migration path:
> >>  1) git init in master mirror of prefix portage tree
> >>  2) deliver files of initial .git repository via rsync
> >
> > the prefix neither the main tree aren't even in git, so it would only be
> > artificial bloat that keeps history
> 
> If you used git you should know that "bloat" is not significant. It's not SVN :)

I use git, and it stores history.  This is the bloat I'm referring to.

>  with a non-existing/hard upgrade
> > path that's going to disappear as soon as we no longer need our overlay
> 
> Sorry, I haven't thought of it. Is there upgrade path from rsync btw?

No, neither is there one forseen as necessary.

Simple practical problem: we have rsync slaves now, but not git slaves,
neither can we turn them into git slaves.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level
Attachment:
signature.asc (Digital signature)
Replies:
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
-- Konstantin Tokarev
References:
Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
-- Konstantin Tokarev
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
-- Fabian Groffen
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
-- Konstantin Tokarev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-alt: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
Next by thread:
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
Previous by date:
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree
Next by date:
Re: Proposal: use git instead of rsync for syncing of prefix portage tree


Updated Jun 18, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-alt mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.