| 1 |
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:14 PM Brian Evans <grknight@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> I personally would be sad to see rsync go as I use the git developer |
| 4 |
> tree as my main repository on 2 machines. This is so I can develop and |
| 5 |
> update from the single source. These have no news or md5-cache and it |
| 6 |
> can be painful to generate metadata on one of them. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
The stable git repos contain news and cache. Users would sync from these. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Also, people have mentioned concerns with load on infra, but |
| 12 |
presumably if we have dozens of people willing to host rsync mirrors, |
| 13 |
I'd think that we'd find enough willing to host git mirrors. And of |
| 14 |
course there are a ton of semi-proprietary services that are free to |
| 15 |
mirror on. I don't really see how it matters that much if we have |
| 16 |
some mirrors that are proprietary - I doubt we have many servers with |
| 17 |
FOSS firmware and CPUs and so on. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> Git has no easy sub-tree download equivalent that I know of. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
The nature of git would make it very difficult to only clone part of a |
| 22 |
repo as it is structured at the top level by commit, not directory. |
| 23 |
Of course somebody could create their own mirror of only part of the |
| 24 |
tree, but I'm not sure what the value of that would be. Your use case |
| 25 |
of downloading metadata/etc isn't needed since we already have git |
| 26 |
repos containing this. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
Rich |
Archives