Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 01:43:44
Message-Id: 20181220144307.58a98bc1@katipo2.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method by Andrew Savchenko
1 On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 12:55:55 +0300
2 Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote:
4 > My main concern with git is downlink fault tolerance. If rsync
5 > connection is broken, it can be easily restored without much data
6 > retransmission. If git download connection is broken, it has to
7 > start all over again. So there are cases where rsync will be always
8 > much more preferable than git.
10 I suspect there's a mechanism available to get git to sync forward only
11 "n-much", but not entirely sure.
13 I'll have to re-read and re-comprehend `git help fetch` though to be
14 sure.
16 But if there was, an alternative for "I have problems with links
17 flaking" would be to do batches of smaller fast-forwards.
19 This option would *theoretically* be equivalent to having published
20 bundles, except of course allowing you to jump forward an arbitrary
21 step-size.
23 I suspect a published list of SHA1's broken down by time might also
24 help here in conjunction with passing required ones as "refspec" values
25 to fetch, which would also approximate the bundle strategy, albeit
26 using substantially less server-side storage space.