Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Dan Meltzer <parallelgrapefruit@×××××.com>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 23:03:59
Message-Id: 46059ce10511191459i1f5df5b4q8fcbd9ae2ad2b401@mail.gmail.com
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41 by Kurt Lieber
1 Sorry for two mails in a row.. but out of curiosity, instead of using
2 30 minute rsync, why not 30 minute mirror of cvs? KDE does this fairly
3 well, they even have it something like every 5 minutes, is there any
4 reason mirrored cvs is not possible//feasible? is this something svn
5 has gotten better at?
6
7 On 11/19/05, Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o> wrote:
8 > On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 05:44:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dan Meltzer wrote:
9 > > Funy, I was just pondering that myself... is authenticated rsync
10 > > really possible?
11 >
12 > Yes, it has its own auth mechanism. We actually use it for some automated
13 > cron jobs that we have.
14 >
15 > > The only downside to this that I can see would be the lack of
16 > > history... FEX an upgraded -rX ebuild breaks something, I could test
17 > > against previous -rX's in turn to find out exactly which broke it, and
18 > > other history like stuff. This may or may not be necessary/helpful,
19 > > hard to say without it having happened :)
20 >
21 > So, can other arch testers please pitch in with their $.02? If we gave you
22 > rsync instead of CVS, would that be sufficient? Or do you need the
23 > revision history, etc. of CVS?
24 >
25 > And, any objections to a ~30 minute delay between CVS<->this solution?
26 >
27 > --kurt
28 >
29 >
30 >
31
32 --
33 gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-dev] implementation details for GLEP 41 Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>