Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Nirbheek Chauhan <nirbheek.chauhan@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:11:45
Message-Id: CADqQcK7ye10ooK64FO9wx2NR8b_gcsT+mMe-uU-t9yt4AR0VUg@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by Fabian Groffen
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

Replies