Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists. c.f. bug 424647
On Wednesday, August 24, 2011 00:44:57 Matt Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz 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?
other aspects that havent been covered so far:
- we need mirrors to distribute the load, and people willing to create rsync
mirrors are much easier than git
- along those lines, simplicity ... very easy to bring up a rsync mirror, and
the people maintaining our mirrors are familiar with it
- load on the system is higher with git than rsync (at least cpu wise), thus
we need beefier machines to handle the same # of clients
-mike
|
| Attachment: |
|
signature.asc (This is a digitally signed message part.)
|
|
