Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
Subject: Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2012 06:54:04 -0400
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Kent Fredric <kentfredric@...> 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:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
References:
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Duncan
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Dirkjan Ochtman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Robin H. Johnson
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- William Hubbs
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Michał Górny
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Alexey Shvetsov
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Rich Freeman
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
-- Kent Fredric
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by thread:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Previous by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver
Next by date:
Re: Re: Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver


Updated Jun 29, 2012

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.