| 1 |
On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 13:16:47 +0200 hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 08/14/2015 01:10 PM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 02:11:09 -0700 Daniel Campbell (zlg) wrote: |
| 4 |
> >> I honestly don't see the point of this when `git log` or even `git |
| 5 |
> >> diff` or standard `diff` will tell you if what's in your overlay |
| 6 |
> >> differs from the source. With some bash magic it could even be |
| 7 |
> >> automated. The point of that 'feature' is to see what, if anything, |
| 8 |
> >> has changed between one's overlay and Gentoo's running tree. A diff |
| 9 |
> >> would not only be able to tell you *if* anything changed, but also |
| 10 |
> >> *what*, without adding around 5-7 extra bytes per ebuild. Sure, it's |
| 11 |
> >> only bytes, but when multiplied against the number of ebuilds we have, |
| 12 |
> >> it can make a few hundred KB difference. When expanded, that number |
| 13 |
> >> multiplies. Is it worth adding this extra bloat to something that a |
| 14 |
> >> standard utility can expose better than a hash? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > Agree here. Also I don't like the idea of post-modifying content of |
| 17 |
> > signed commits: files developers committed to the tree should be |
| 18 |
> > the same users get. As a side effect this will simplify tree |
| 19 |
> > consistency checks and forensics. |
| 20 |
> > |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> The files are already modified (e.g. Manifest) for rsync, so this |
| 23 |
> arguments becomes a moot point. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
No. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
1. Modified ebuild != modified manifest. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
2. The question is why manifests are modified for rsync. In git |
| 30 |
manifests are thin (only distfiles are there), in rsync they also |
| 31 |
contain checksums for ebuilds and files dir content. Do we really |
| 32 |
need this? These manifests are not signed now, so of little use. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
Andrew Savchenko |
Archives