On 08/24/2011 01:02 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote:
>> On 24-08-2011 00:44:57 -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote:
>>>> On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug     , Lance Albertson wrote:
>>>>> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise you're
>>>>> just replicating what you do in the commit.
>>>>
>>>> It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't have
>>>> commit info.
>>>
>>> Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so
>>> much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly?
>>
>> ehm, that you need git?  that you need to use git to get information
>> about changes?  that you need a whole new infrastructure of mirrors to
>> get it running (vs the rsync infrastructure)?  that you need at minimum
>> 800MiB to be able to look at some history, iso. 286MiB as the rsync tree
>> is now?
>>
>> Besides from that git doesn't even work on all platforms, but I can
>> imagine you don't care about that.
>>
> 
> Actually, the major blocker as I understand it, is portage metadata
> cache regeneration.

If anybody needs some background information on this, the "[RFC] DIGESTS
metadata variable for cache validation" thread can serve as a useful
reference:


http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/msg_cfa80e33ee5fa6f854120ddfb9b468b3.xml

Also, note that it's possible to use post-sync scripts to tweak mtimes
of files pulled with git:

  https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355313

We've had support for git post-sync timestamp handling in emerge for
some time now:


http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=commit;h=8e72dfe64208d0329a66d9d329d58ec458e79890
-- 
Thanks,
Zac