| 1 |
Michał Górny posted on Sun, 03 Jun 2012 09:22:04 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>> Even if only the files metatdata changes, that still adds a significant |
| 4 |
>> cost to an rsync. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> I wonder when it will come to the point where git will be more efficient |
| 7 |
> than rsync. Or maybe it would be already? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Handwavey guess, but I've figured git to be more efficient client-side |
| 10 |
for some time. Server-side I don't know about, but I've presumed that's |
| 11 |
the reason the switch-to-git plans haven't included switching the default |
| 12 |
for user-syncs to git. I expect user/client side, git would be more |
| 13 |
efficient already, but as I said, that's handwavey guesses. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
-- |
| 16 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 17 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 18 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives