1 |
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 00:44:57 Matt Turner wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz wrote: |
3 |
> > On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug , Lance Albertson wrote: |
4 |
> >> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise you're |
5 |
> >> just replicating what you do in the commit. |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't have |
8 |
> > commit info. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so |
11 |
> much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly? |
12 |
|
13 |
other aspects that havent been covered so far: |
14 |
- we need mirrors to distribute the load, and people willing to create rsync |
15 |
mirrors are much easier than git |
16 |
- along those lines, simplicity ... very easy to bring up a rsync mirror, and |
17 |
the people maintaining our mirrors are familiar with it |
18 |
- load on the system is higher with git than rsync (at least cpu wise), thus |
19 |
we need beefier machines to handle the same # of clients |
20 |
-mike |