| 1 |
On 11/30/2012 12:30 PM, Alec Warner wrote: |
| 2 |
> How about we not change the docs until someone eagerly implements all |
| 3 |
> the stuff you just said? |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Note that from an infra POV our existing system works fairly well and |
| 6 |
> requires no day-to-day tinkering. |
| 7 |
> I'm always happy to consider new options, but work needs to put in to |
| 8 |
> make it feasible. I'm sure if we switched to http with zsync or |
| 9 |
> something, we could make it feasible. I want to see a prototype, etc. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> -A |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The initial suggestion was to use emerge-webrsync to fetch the initial |
| 14 |
portage snapshot, which requires no code changes. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
A suggestion was made in response was that we should take this a step |
| 17 |
further by using emerge-webrsync for everything. I feel that the code |
| 18 |
needs improvements before it can formally replace `emerge --sync` as our |
| 19 |
recommended way of updating the tree. Others seem to agree. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That does not impact our ability to use emerge-webrsync to fetch the |
| 22 |
initial snapshot in the handbook, which is my original suggestion. |
Archives