| 1 |
On 06/02/11 09:40, Eray Aslan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Is git faster then rsync? I've never done any checks but it'll be |
| 4 |
>> surprising if it will. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Git usually is faster - except the initial clone. Basically, rsync |
| 7 |
> protocol scales with the project size not with change size. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
We're discussing performance of something that takes less than a minute. |
| 10 |
I see times of ~30-45 seconds for emerge --sync vs. ~30 seconds for git |
| 11 |
pull on the kde overlay. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
And then portage takes so much longer to calculate deps anyway ... why |
| 14 |
are we discussing the performance of the fastest operation? ;) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> And lastly, while I don't really care either way, I think at least some |
| 17 |
> of the push back is the result of unfamiliarity with git. And my |
| 18 |
> impression is that unless a dev with enough political capital spearheads |
| 19 |
> the move, this issue will continue to come up for a long time yet. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
More the complexity of git making simple things an hour-long oddysey |
| 22 |
through IRC, trying to find someone who has a clue how to get the HEAD |
| 23 |
back ... it's a complex thing that usually gets in the way when I use |
| 24 |
more than add, commit and push (and even push is aargh nooo why so |
| 25 |
complimacated?!) |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
But I guess people prefer having to write wrapper scripts around |
| 28 |
wrappers to get things done, so I'll just stay out of the way and |
| 29 |
reserve the right to point and laugh when funny misbehaviour happens. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Patrick Lauer http://service.gentooexperimental.org |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Gentoo Council Member and Evangelist |
| 35 |
Part of Gentoo Benchmarks, Forensics, PostgreSQL, KDE herds |
Archives