| 1 |
On 24-08-2011 00:44:57 -0400, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> 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 |
ehm, that you need git? that you need to use git to get information |
| 14 |
about changes? that you need a whole new infrastructure of mirrors to |
| 15 |
get it running (vs the rsync infrastructure)? that you need at minimum |
| 16 |
800MiB to be able to look at some history, iso. 286MiB as the rsync tree |
| 17 |
is now? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Besides from that git doesn't even work on all platforms, but I can |
| 20 |
imagine you don't care about that. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Fabian Groffen |
| 25 |
Gentoo on a different level |
Archives