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
1 On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@×××××.com> wrote:
2 >
3 > Hmm, thats annoying. Almost makes me wish it was the trees that were
4 > signed, not the commits.
5
6 I think it is the tree that is signed, but that changes too.
7
8 Rebasing re-applies the same diff to the new head to give you a new
9 set of commits. When you apply the same diff to a different parent
10 you end up with a different tree, so the tree signature won't be the
11 same either.
12
13 Keep in mind that git does not store a long train of diffs. It stores
14 a long chain of complete trees, and the diffs get calculated if you
15 ask for them. Since it is COW you only re-store files that actually
16 change, and incorporate others by reference. However, if you have a
17 1MB file that you change 1 line on 100x, you'll end up with 100MB of
18 files. Of course, when they get packed I'd hope that they'd compress
19 well.
20
21 Rich

Replies

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