| 1 |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 00:44:57 -0400 |
| 2 |
Matt Turner <mattst88@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz |
| 5 |
> <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug , Lance Albertson wrote: |
| 7 |
> >> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise |
| 8 |
> >> you're just replicating what you do in the commit. |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't have |
| 11 |
> > commit info. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so |
| 14 |
> much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
We still need to supply them with metadata cache, and we don't really |
| 17 |
want to put that in the git tree. And a few other files are merged into |
| 18 |
the tree as well (AFAIR herds.xml is an example); we could try some |
| 19 |
kind of hybrid rsync+git but I guess not yet. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Best regards, |
| 23 |
Michał Górny |
Archives