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