On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Fabian Groffen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 24-08-2011 00:44:57 -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?
> 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
Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team