| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 5 |
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800 |
| 6 |
> Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>> Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a |
| 8 |
>>> perfect example of doing it wrong... |
| 9 |
>> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to |
| 10 |
>> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This |
| 11 |
>> creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing distribution of metadata |
| 12 |
>> cache via version control systems is more flexible. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> No, it's just encouraging bad development practices. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> If you're concerned that setting up an rsync mirror is difficult, why |
| 19 |
> not make a tool that generates a tarball, including metadata, for a |
| 20 |
> repo, and have people run that on a cron and distribute it via http? |
| 21 |
> That's just as easy to host, and anyone running an overlay big enough |
| 22 |
> to make this impractical already has the resources to deal with rsync |
| 23 |
> instead... |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I'm not saying that it necessarily "difficult" or "beyond the |
| 26 |
resources", but it does create an unnecessary burden. I think that |
| 27 |
it adds a significant level of convenience to be able to use a |
| 28 |
version control system as a single distribution channel. |
| 29 |
- -- |
| 30 |
Thanks, |
| 31 |
Zac |
| 32 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 33 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
iEYEARECAAYFAkmPZNMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNqcgCg3GAWiklumvFhBtbWDYBPGz2+ |
| 36 |
u6IAoJ5eCaytti4FSmOHEtIrLSm10W4O |
| 37 |
=n0eG |
| 38 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives