| 1 |
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:18:39PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> Dnia 2014-09-15, o godz. 15:55:35 Anthony G. Basile napisał(a): |
| 3 |
> > If the argument is that there are no Changelogs in rsync, then |
| 4 |
> > let's write git hooks to generate them when the repository is |
| 5 |
> > mirrored to the rsync host. The only problem I see is with this |
| 6 |
> > is then adding ChangeLog to the manifest and gpg signing it which |
| 7 |
> > has to be done at the developer's side. But, I think the tree |
| 8 |
> > that users get from rsync should have the logs. Having *both* a |
| 9 |
> > ChangeLog file and git log is redundant. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Can't we just kill rsync then? The whole ChangeLog seems to take |
| 12 |
> more effort than the actual benefit it gives. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
I'm +1 for killing rsync and having everyone use Git. With --shallow |
| 15 |
clones for folks who don't care about the history, and deep clones for |
| 16 |
those who do (and you can change your mind both ways), I think |
| 17 |
everyone gets what they want without messing around with a Git → rsync |
| 18 |
conversion layer. Of course, it would be nice if the CSV → Git |
| 19 |
migration added any ChangeLog notes to the associated commit message |
| 20 |
to avoid losing information, but I imagine it would be hard to |
| 21 |
automate that and still get readable commit messages ;). |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
I don't see any benefit to using rsync vs. a shallow clone as the |
| 24 |
transmission protocol. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Cheers, |
| 27 |
Trevor |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). |
| 31 |
For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy |
Archives