| 1 |
On Friday, 6 July 2018 08:29:26 BST Martin Vaeth wrote: |
| 2 |
> Davyd McColl <davydm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 1) `sync-depth` has been deprecated (should now use `clone-depth`) |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> The reason is that sync-depth was meant to be effective for |
| 6 |
> every sync, i.e. that with sync-depth=1 the clone should stay shallow. |
| 7 |
> However, it turned out that this caused frequent/occassional errors |
| 8 |
> with git syncing when earlier chunks are needed. |
| 9 |
> So they decided to drop this, and the value is only used for the |
| 10 |
> initial cloning and ignored from then on. Due to this change of |
| 11 |
> effect, it has been renamed. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> > 2) with the option missing, portage was fetching the entire history |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Yes, but even with this option, your history will fill up over time. |
| 16 |
> Only the initial cloning will go faster and need less space. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> > 2) I believe that the original intent of defaulting to a shallow clone was |
| 19 |
> > a good idea |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Due to the point mentioned above, this is not very useful anymore. |
| 22 |
> Moreover, now that full checksumming is supported for rsync, the only |
| 23 |
> advantage of using git is that you get the history (in particular |
| 24 |
> ChangeLogs). |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The lack of disk space on some of my systems, metered and slow bandwidth and |
| 27 |
no need to know what every individual commit and reason for it was, had me |
| 28 |
sticking to using rsync, after a short sting on using git. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I don't think anyone recommended git unless good reasons for one's use case |
| 31 |
make it an optimal choice. |
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Regards, |
| 34 |
Mick |
Archives