| 1 |
Donnie Berkholz <spyderous@g.o> said: |
| 2 |
> Ryan Phillips wrote: |
| 3 |
> >git - terrible with lots of tiny little files |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Can you provide some evidence to support this? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> I posted in more detail on SCMs elsewhere today. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Sure. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
git only allows commits from the project parent. Meaning that if |
| 12 |
there was a project laid out like: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
portage-tree/ |
| 15 |
some-package/ |
| 16 |
some-package-1.0.0.ebuild |
| 17 |
xorg/ |
| 18 |
xorg-1.ebuild |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
If I am in the portage-tree/xorg directory, I would be unable to do |
| 21 |
a cg-commit. Git only commits from the parent project directory, so I |
| 22 |
would have to change back to the portage-tree and do a commit on the |
| 23 |
entire tree. We should not required that from an SCM. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Subversion versions each directory. Tha is why one can change into |
| 26 |
portage-tree/some-package and do svn svn commit. This is different |
| 27 |
that git, where the entire tree is versioned as one. Make sense? |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Second issue with git, is that with lots of tiny little files things |
| 30 |
don't work so well. I tried converting our portage tree into a git |
| 31 |
tree, and it ran for around 2 days until I finally killed it. If we |
| 32 |
didn't want to preserve history, then maybe it would work out. But |
| 33 |
with the problem I outlined above I still don't see it as a contender. |
| 34 |
There are lots of times when one would want to do a commit in one |
| 35 |
directory. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-ryan |
Archives