1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:53:45 -0500 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> In the degenerate case where nothing has changed, an rsync still needs |
4 |
> to walk the full tree and send a file list, while git just sends a |
5 |
> commit ID and terminates. |
6 |
|
7 |
Technicality: While I believe you're correct for pure rsync, AFAIK, |
8 |
portage (and presumably the others) and the gentoo mirrors use a hybrid |
9 |
rsync method, where first the timestamp file is compared, and if it |
10 |
hasn't changed the rsync itself doesn't occur. |
11 |
|
12 |
So for gentoo rsync you'd need to argue the single-file single-line |
13 |
single-commit change case, not the zero-change case. But your point |
14 |
stands. |
15 |
|
16 |
>> For one thing we can't expect users to keep an up to date copy of all |
17 |
>> gentoo developer's OpenPGP keys to verify each git commit, additionally |
18 |
>> this will cause issues with retirement and similar situations |
19 |
>> (certificate revocation, subkey rotations, expiries). |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Well, we could do something (eventually) to make tracking keys easier, |
22 |
> but I'll still buy that the thick manifests are more secure. Git commit |
23 |
> signatures are only bound to their contents with sha1. I get that |
24 |
> nobody has demonstrated a practical attack on that, but I think most |
25 |
> crypto experts wouldn't heartily endorse the design. |
26 |
|
27 |
Which is why I mentioned that there isn't a proper replacement for secure |
28 |
webrsync yet, so it'd have to stay around. But git, synced over a secure |
29 |
connection at least, is certainly not /worse/ than normal rsync, and it |
30 |
arguably has at least the potential to be far better. |
31 |
|
32 |
> Keep in mind that we do have git mirrors that include metadata/etc |
33 |
> hosted on Github. I know people have concerns with their software being |
34 |
> proprietary but as far as syncing goes it is just a mirror. I doubt |
35 |
> most of us audit all the distfiles mirrors we use to make sure they're |
36 |
> only using FOSS ftp/http servers and so on. |
37 |
|
38 |
This is why I don't have a problem syncing from github any more than I do |
39 |
from whatever rsync mirror, despite freedomware being a relatively high |
40 |
priority concern of mine in general. As long as the protocols are open |
41 |
and there's freedomware solutions available, whether a particular host |
42 |
I'm connecting to actually runs 100% freedomware isn't typically |
43 |
something I worry about... unless of course I'm the admin responsible for |
44 |
deciding what that host runs, in which case I'm unlikely to run anything |
45 |
/but/ freedomware on it (above BIOS/firmware level, anyway). |
46 |
|
47 |
> There really isn't any |
48 |
> reason that it couldn't be hosted on infra either, assuming they wanted |
49 |
> the extra load (and I don't see the point in it, since it is just a |
50 |
> mirror, and if it ever goes away it is trivial to just point the scripts |
51 |
> that generate it to push to some other mirror instead - |
52 |
> git itself is completely FOSS). |
53 |
|
54 |
I'd say doable, but wouldn't call it "trivial". Consider the difficulty |
55 |
the kernel had when bitkeeper pulled the rug out from under the Linux |
56 |
kernel, thus creating the need for git in the first place. The switch |
57 |
was doable, and eventually done (and like Linux itself, it ultimately |
58 |
became the world standard), but I wouldn't exactly call it "trivial". |
59 |
|
60 |
Of course in this case we're talking repo mirrors not repo software, but |
61 |
if gentoo's full rsync volume were to switch to git using github, and |
62 |
then github were to pull the rug out from under us... procuring and |
63 |
getting up and running that sort of hosting power on a week or even 90- |
64 |
day notice wouldn't be exactly "trivial", unless of course we suddenly |
65 |
have Trump's credit card or similar to charge it on! (Sorry, I'm |
66 |
following Nevada Republican caucus results 2nite as well, so it's Trump's |
67 |
CC, not Gates' or Ellison's or ...) |
68 |
|
69 |
> Again, I have nothing against devs maintaining rsync and changelogs, |
70 |
> and users making use of them. I just don't see it as the end of the |
71 |
> world if devs decide to stop taking care of them. |
72 |
|
73 |
Particularly when the basic changelog information is there, it's simply |
74 |
quibbling about chronological or reverse-chronological order we're doing |
75 |
now, and people who /really/ care about it by rights should be going |
76 |
straight to the git logs in the first place. |
77 |
|
78 |
-- |
79 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
80 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
81 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |