Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Cc: robbat2@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 09:06:26
Message-Id: 20110824103358.49d9ae90@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Re: [gentoo-dev] Progress on cvs->git migration by "Robin H. Johnson"
On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 07:30:11 +0000
"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o> wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:44:57AM -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? > Bandwidth: Along the same lines, rsync will always be able to use less > bandwidth than Git, because none of the intermediate commits need to > be transfered. This will be esp. evident as a user tree gets older > (the amount of mtime/checksum metadata scales linearly with the size > of the tree, not the age of the tree. The actual file content > transfered scales linearly with the age of the tree).
I tend not to agree here. With very rare updates, this is true indeed. But I guess that with daily or maybe even weekly updates, git should be able to consume less bandwidth because it doesn't need to check all unmodified files. -- Best regards, Michał Górny


File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature