Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Cc: robbat2@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:06:26
Message-Id: 20110824103358.49d9ae90@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:30:11 +0000
2 "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:44:57AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
5 > > On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz
6 > > <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
7 > > > On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug     , Lance Albertson wrote:
8 > > >> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise
9 > > >> you're just replicating what you do in the commit.
10 > > >
11 > > > It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't
12 > > > have commit info.
13 > >
14 > > Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so
15 > > much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly?
16 > Bandwidth: Along the same lines, rsync will always be able to use less
17 > bandwidth than Git, because none of the intermediate commits need to
18 > be transfered. This will be esp. evident as a user tree gets older
19 > (the amount of mtime/checksum metadata scales linearly with the size
20 > of the tree, not the age of the tree. The actual file content
21 > transfered scales linearly with the age of the tree).
22
23 I tend not to agree here. With very rare updates, this is true indeed.
24 But I guess that with daily or maybe even weekly updates, git should be
25 able to consume less bandwidth because it doesn't need to check all
26 unmodified files.
27
28 --
29 Best regards,
30 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature