On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:44:57AM -0400, Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?
rsync is still being supported. There is NO size or bandwidth advantage
to the users having Git, quite the opposite in fact, the users would be
disadvantaged if we required them to use git.
Size: The size of an rsync tree will ALWAYS be smaller than _ANY_ VCS
checkout, because none of the VCS overhead will be present (no CVS/,
Bandwidth: Along the same lines, rsync will always be able to use less
bandwidth than Git, because none of the intermediate commits need to be
transfered. This will be esp. evident as a user tree gets older (the
amount of mtime/checksum metadata scales linearly with the size of the
tree, not the age of the tree. The actual file content transfered scales
linearly with the age of the tree).
The only advantage to users with Git is for those where metadata
operations on their local disk is slower than the equivalent index
operations in git (mtime checks on cold cache causing lots of seek vs
being able to read a single file).
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : email@example.com
GnuPG FP : 11AC BA4F 4778 E3F6 E4ED F38E B27B 944E 3488 4E85