Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Zac Medico <zmedico@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:07:16
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by Nirbheek Chauhan
On 08/24/2011 01:02 AM, Nirbheek Chauhan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Fabian Groffen <grobian@g.o> wrote: >> On 24-08-2011 00:44:57 -0400, Matt Turner wrote: >>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 10:30 PM, Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o> wrote: >>>> On 15:49 Tue 23 Aug , Lance Albertson wrote: >>>>> I think using the shortlog output is the sane solution otherwise you're >>>>> just replicating what you do in the commit. >>>> >>>> It's not replication if users continue to use rsync; they won't have >>>> commit info. >>> >>> Do we really want users to continue using rsync? Isn't git pull so >>> much faster? What's the downside of users using git directly? >> >> ehm, that you need git? that you need to use git to get information >> about changes? that you need a whole new infrastructure of mirrors to >> get it running (vs the rsync infrastructure)? that you need at minimum >> 800MiB to be able to look at some history, iso. 286MiB as the rsync tree >> is now? >> >> Besides from that git doesn't even work on all platforms, but I can >> imagine you don't care about that. >> > > Actually, the major blocker as I understand it, is portage metadata > cache regeneration.
If anybody needs some background information on this, the "[RFC] DIGESTS metadata variable for cache validation" thread can serve as a useful reference: Also, note that it's possible to use post-sync scripts to tweak mtimes of files pulled with git: We've had support for git post-sync timestamp handling in emerge for some time now:;a=commit;h=8e72dfe64208d0329a66d9d329d58ec458e79890 -- Thanks, Zac