Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2012 10:55:20
Message-Id: CAGfcS_k9SHiRbzXee14giw6eF53whPR4K=6KC6roSbs8mDRXMQ@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver by Kent Fredric
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote:
> > Hmm, thats annoying. Almost makes me wish it was the trees that were > signed, not the commits.
I think it is the tree that is signed, but that changes too. Rebasing re-applies the same diff to the new head to give you a new set of commits. When you apply the same diff to a different parent you end up with a different tree, so the tree signature won't be the same either. Keep in mind that git does not store a long train of diffs. It stores a long chain of complete trees, and the diffs get calculated if you ask for them. Since it is COW you only re-store files that actually change, and incorporate others by reference. However, if you have a 1MB file that you change 1 line on 100x, you'll end up with 100MB of files. Of course, when they get packed I'd hope that they'd compress well. Rich

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com>