Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o>
To: gentoo-project <gentoo-project@l.g.o>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 02:33:43
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] RFC: Dropping rsync as a tree distribution method by Kent Fredric
1 On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:43 PM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote:
2 >
3 > I suspect a published list of SHA1's broken down by time might also
4 > help here in conjunction with passing required ones as "refspec" values
5 > to fetch, which would also approximate the bundle strategy, albeit
6 > using substantially less server-side storage space.
8 I'm not sure how necessary this is, but another way to do this is to
9 just use tags, perhaps date-based (eg year-month). Perhaps this could
10 be combined with some level of QA as well to ensure the tree is clean
11 at the time it was tagged. From the command line this would be
12 simpler than copy/pasting hashes from some webpage, but it obviously
13 clutters the repo. Granted, it isn't much clutter if you only do it
14 monthly.
16 Git fetch does not seem to support any kind of relative refspec. You
17 need a hash/branch/tag/ref. Git ls-remote just lists refs and not
18 history.
20 If super-unreliable connections are the concern it probably would be
21 cleaner to just use the previous suggestion of providing bundles with
22 resume support. They can be downloaded and then pulled/fetched from.
23 Do we really have that much of a need for this?
25 --
26 Rich