1 |
On 04/05/2016 08:59 AM, Andrew Savchenko wrote: |
2 |
> Hi, |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Mon, 4 Apr 2016 05:29:07 -0400 Rich Freeman wrote: |
5 |
>> On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 3:01 AM, Andrew Savchenko <bircoph@g.o> wrote: |
6 |
>>> 2) While git pull is much faster on a decent connection than rsync, |
7 |
>>> metadata generation is damn slow, especially on older systems. On |
8 |
>>> my Atom it takes several hours which is unacceptable. Please note |
9 |
>>> I'm not talking about ChangeLogs generation, I meant metadata |
10 |
>>> directory requires for portage and many tools (like eix) to work |
11 |
>>> properly. |
12 |
>> I don't think anybody has proposed ditching rsync metadata - just the |
13 |
>> Changelogs at this point. |
14 |
> Please see Mattehew's e-mail I replied to: |
15 |
> |
16 |
>> It'd be nice to have people just check/use git instead if they want |
17 |
>> history, but people seem resistant to change. |
18 |
> I explained my opinion why git can't fully replace rsync at this |
19 |
> moment. |
20 |
And you make the workflow painful: |
21 |
- rsync and git are not synchronized, so I can't even be sure that I'm |
22 |
looking at the right thing in git (e.g. if there were some commits in |
23 |
between that affect the thing that appears to be broken, so works in git |
24 |
head but is broken in current rsync checkout) |
25 |
|
26 |
- Either I struggle with a frustratingly bad "Web UI" (both gitweb and |
27 |
proprietary frontends like github are sad) |
28 |
- Or I have to clone a huge repository locally to be able to look at it, |
29 |
instead of looking at things on the machine where it broke |
30 |
|
31 |
- Now I need both rsync *and* git checkout to see issues (see for |
32 |
example https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577722 that only affects |
33 |
rsync, and only some of the time) |
34 |
|
35 |
But who cares about users ;) |
36 |
(Yeah, I'm possibly a bit cynical because after 9 months we're still in |
37 |
the middle of a git migration with no end in sight ...) |