On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 09:25:43AM +0000, Robin H. Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 03, 2012 at 08:31:43AM +0000, Duncan wrote:
> > Micha?? G??rny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted:
> > 
> > >> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant
> > >> cost to an rsync.
> > > I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient
> > > than rsync. Or maybe it would be already?
> > Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side 
> > for some time.  Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's 
> > the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default 
> > for user-syncs to git.  I expect user/client side, git would be more 
> > efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses.
> No, the switch to git will NOT help users, it isn't more efficient.
> 
> They will still be best served by rsync, for a couple of reasons:
> 1. metadata cache is NOT available in Git.

Sidenote, and this is mildly insane, I'd thought about submodules for 
this; basically every rsync window, we dump the metadata into vcs, 
which devs can pull down and make use of.

I've also not experimented w/ this workflow, so it could be batshit 
insane.  Anyone game to experiment?

~harring