Re: [gentoo-dev] Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

[Alexey Shvetsov]

Robin H. Johnson писал 2012-05-23 19:47:
> 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.


Another good point for repo size

https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#How_do_I_use_git_for_large_projects.2C_where_the_repository_is_large.2C_say_approaching_1_TB.2C_but_a_checkout_is_only_a_few_hundred_MB.3F_Will_every_developer_need_1_TB_of_local_disk_space.3F
-- 
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute, 
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexxyum@×××××.com
mailto:alexxy@g.o
mailto:alexxy@×××××××××××××.ru