| 1 |
On 06/08/11 16:13, Fabian Groffen wrote: |
| 2 |
> There probably are drawbacks to this system as well. I, however, only |
| 3 |
> see big advantages for the moment. |
| 4 |
> Comments, thoughts, ideas welcome. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
To be honest I don't like that idea. I don't see any benefits from doing so: |
| 7 |
- history per package - huh? git log for specific path/file works, pulling all |
| 8 |
the history for whole repository is one-time thing, does not happen often, |
| 9 |
Nirbheek already pointed out some history-sharing issues |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
- tree generation is dynamic - actually I think this is a disadvantage, it has |
| 12 |
a nice potential to eat a lot of resources on master rsync server, also having |
| 13 |
different "flavours" of the tree only brings in added complexity |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
- per package branches - I like overlays, I couldn't care less about branches |
| 16 |
for single packages :) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
So: |
| 19 |
- having it all in single repository means that I need to care only about one |
| 20 |
thing, not around 14956 of them |
| 21 |
- git was designed to be efficient with large repositories, use this ability |
| 22 |
- KISS |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
-- |
| 25 |
Krzysztof Pawlik <nelchael at gentoo.org> key id: 0xF6A80E46 |
| 26 |
desktop-misc, java, vim, kernel, python, apache... |
Archives