1 |
On 06/08/11 16:13, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
2 |
> There probably are drawbacks to this system as well. I, however, only |
3 |
> see big advantages for the moment. |
4 |
> Comments, thoughts, ideas welcome. |
5 |
|
6 |
To be honest I don't like that idea. I don't see any benefits from doing so: |
7 |
- history per package - huh? git log for specific path/file works, pulling all |
8 |
the history for whole repository is one-time thing, does not happen often, |
9 |
Nirbheek already pointed out some history-sharing issues |
10 |
|
11 |
- tree generation is dynamic - actually I think this is a disadvantage, it has |
12 |
a nice potential to eat a lot of resources on master rsync server, also having |
13 |
different "flavours" of the tree only brings in added complexity |
14 |
|
15 |
- per package branches - I like overlays, I couldn't care less about branches |
16 |
for single packages :) |
17 |
|
18 |
So: |
19 |
- having it all in single repository means that I need to care only about one |
20 |
thing, not around 14956 of them |
21 |
- git was designed to be efficient with large repositories, use this ability |
22 |
- KISS |
23 |
|
24 |
-- |
25 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 |
26 |
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache... |