| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:29:44PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: |
| 2 |
> I don't see any benefit to using rsync vs. a shallow clone as the |
| 3 |
> transmission protocol. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
Other than the fact that before you dropped it you'd need to push a |
| 6 |
‘emerge sync’ that could handle either rsync or Git, stabilize that |
| 7 |
Portage, and then wait for folks to adopt it. That's going to slow |
| 8 |
down your migration a bit ;). I think an rsync-able version is a |
| 9 |
better choice for the migration, but since it's not destined to live |
| 10 |
long (in my view), I don't think it really matters what goes into it. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Cheers, |
| 13 |
Trevor |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 17 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives