Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: My masterplan for git migration (+ looking for infra to test it)

[Anthony G. Basile]

On 09/15/14 16:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Michał Górny <mgorny@g.o> wrote:
>> Can't we just kill rsync then? The whole ChangeLog seems to take more
>> effort than the actual benefit it gives.
>>
> I'm not sure ditching rsync entirely is necessary - it might be more
> trouble than it is worth as it is a very effective simple way to
> distribute the tree.  However, I'm not really opposed to it either.

I can live with git only but I'm not sure what would happen if we tried 
this?  There are lots of users and scripts out there that assume rsync.  
That's one cold shower.

>
> However, I do really question whether we need changelogs in rsync.  It
> seems like many projects are going away from these - or doing what the
> kernel is doing and just dumping a git log into them.  I don't think
> we need to try to shoehorn the old changelogs into our git history -
> I'd just leave them in the tree for migration and then prune then
> post-migration.

We could just push out the word that ChangeLogs are going away and they 
have to read the git repo.  That might be the easiest solution.  I do 
have users that quote my ChangeLogs though.

>
> Oh, in case it is useful to know, a full historical git bundle is
> about 1.2GB, and a clone+checkout of the bundle uses about 2.1GB of
> space.  A compressed cvs tarball with the full history is about 575MB
> in comparison, though I see it has grown by about 50MB in the last six
> months.  Bottom line is that non-shallow checkouts will need a decent
> amount of space.  Then again, my tmpfs /usr/portage uses 735M just by
> itself.
>
> --
> Rich
>


-- 
Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D.
Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened]
E-Mail    : blueness@g.o
GnuPG FP  : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB  DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA
GnuPG ID  : F52D4BBA