| 1 |
My personal favorite is git syncing. I switched to it off of using github |
| 2 |
once I found a version hosted on infra. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
It really saves time and I get updates immediately as soon as the dev |
| 5 |
tree's commits pass the QA checks. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 6:10 PM, Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Sebastian Pipping <sping@g.o> |
| 10 |
> wrote: |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > The key questions for differences and picking I see are: |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > * Does it support incremental updates? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> This could probably use a bit of nuance, since there is a practical |
| 18 |
> difference in how a git vs rsync update is done, and pros/cons to the |
| 19 |
> two approaches. For infrequent updates git is going to transmit a lot |
| 20 |
> more data, since it has to send all the in-between commits. For |
| 21 |
> frequent updates git would have a lot less local IO since it doesn't |
| 22 |
> have to scan the entire repository to tell what changed. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> The only thing I'd add is that since you're including repositories |
| 25 |
> that have pre-generated metadata, I'd also note which options include |
| 26 |
> some kind of CI (such as the stable repository), which comes at a cost |
| 27 |
> of more latency, but with the benefit of not getting a head that has |
| 28 |
> inconsistent keywording/etc. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> While I personally don't think that non-free software matters on a |
| 31 |
> mirror host (you might as well note which mirrors are running |
| 32 |
> libreboot with FOSS CPU microcode), I could see some people wanting |
| 33 |
> repositories hosted on github noted. |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> -- |
| 36 |
> Rich |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> |
Archives