Gentoo Archives: gentoo-scm

From: Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
To: "Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@g.o>
Cc: gentoo-scm@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-scm] Status of the project?
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 17:07:33
Message-Id: 20090126170729.GA2928@comet
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-scm] Status of the project? by "Robin H. Johnson"
1 On 01:45 Sat 24 Jan , Robin H. Johnson wrote:
2 > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 01:39:43AM +0000, Mike Auty wrote:
3 > Secondary delay is that I asked for some input on hardware and tuning re
4 > managing a very large repo, and still haven't got a response from my
5 > contact (at kernel.org). Regardless of the tuning, we're going to need
6 > to figure out a box with lots of RAM for the repo size.
7
8 There was a conversation on #osuosl last week about gitweb setup for
9 performance, which I attached.
10
11 > > There seem to be two front runners, 1 repo/package and 1 repo/tree. The
12 > > pros and cons are as set out in your file (the flat tree option pros
13 > > don't seem to outweigh the cons, so I haven't really considered that).
14 >
15 > 1 repo/tree is the only one that will fly, see past discussion on the
16 > list.
17
18 I'm still not convinced of that. The alternative would require a patch
19 to git-submodules, some additional tools support for grabbing additional
20 repos with checkouts and repoman, but it has some compelling advantages
21 (like non-devs don't need 1 GB of web space / bandwidth to post their
22 forks of the tree).
23
24 On the other hand, it would be the easiest, and perhaps that's reason
25 enough, because the people working on it don't have the time to do
26 anything more.
27
28 --
29 Thanks,
30 Donnie
31
32 Donnie Berkholz
33 Developer, Gentoo Linux
34 Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com

Attachments

File name MIME type
gitweb-config.log text/plain

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-scm] Status of the project? Donnie Berkholz <dberkholz@g.o>
Re: [gentoo-scm] Status of the project? Mike Auty <ikelos@g.o>