1 |
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 24-08-2011 00:44:57 -0400, Matt Turner wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: |
4 |
>> > On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug , Lance Albertson wrote: |
5 |
>> >> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise you're |
6 |
>> >> just replicating what you do in the commit. |
7 |
>> > |
8 |
>> > It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't have |
9 |
>> > commit info. |
10 |
>> |
11 |
>> Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so |
12 |
>> much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> ehm, that you need git? that you need to use git to get information |
15 |
> about changes? that you need a whole new infrastructure of mirrors to |
16 |
> get it running (vs the rsync infrastructure)? that you need at minimum |
17 |
> 800MiB to be able to look at some history, iso. 286MiB as the rsync tree |
18 |
> is now? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Besides from that git doesn't even work on all platforms, but I can |
21 |
> imagine you don't care about that. |
22 |
> |
23 |
|
24 |
Actually, the major blocker as I understand it, is portage metadata |
25 |
cache regeneration. |
26 |
|
27 |
|
28 |
-- |
29 |
~Nirbheek Chauhan |
30 |
|
31 |
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team |