| 1 |
Part of the original intent of the mail was just to bring to light the |
| 2 |
disparity between the documentation and experience (wrt the default |
| 3 |
value) -- I had no configured value and portage was trying to clone the |
| 4 |
entire history of the repo instead of a shallow start. Since I really |
| 5 |
appreciate the Gentoo documentation and have relied on it for |
| 6 |
installation and any system maintenance, I just wanted to bring this to |
| 7 |
light. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I understand that git history will build over time -- I'm less concerned |
| 10 |
with (eventual) disk usage than I am with the speed of `emerge --sync`, |
| 11 |
which (and perhaps I'm sorely mistaken) appeared to be faster using git |
| 12 |
than rsync -- hence my choice of git over rsync (the discussion at |
| 13 |
https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-1009562.html shows me to not be |
| 14 |
alone in this experience). |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Having the changelogs available also comes off as a positive for me -- |
| 17 |
I'm just plain curious. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-d |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
------ Original Message ------ |
| 22 |
From: "Mick" <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> |
| 23 |
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o |
| 24 |
Sent: 2018-07-06 10:01:20 |
| 25 |
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Portage, git and shallow cloning |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>On Friday, 6 July 2018 08:29:26 BST Martin Vaeth wrote: |
| 28 |
>>Davyd McColl <davydm@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 29 |
>> > 1) `sync-depth` has been deprecated (should now use `clone-depth`) |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>>The reason is that sync-depth was meant to be effective for |
| 32 |
>>every sync, i.e. that with sync-depth=1 the clone should stay shallow. |
| 33 |
>>However, it turned out that this caused frequent/occassional errors |
| 34 |
>>with git syncing when earlier chunks are needed. |
| 35 |
>>So they decided to drop this, and the value is only used for the |
| 36 |
>>initial cloning and ignored from then on. Due to this change of |
| 37 |
>>effect, it has been renamed. |
| 38 |
>> > 2) with the option missing, portage was fetching the entire history |
| 39 |
>> |
| 40 |
>>Yes, but even with this option, your history will fill up over time. |
| 41 |
>>Only the initial cloning will go faster and need less space. |
| 42 |
>> |
| 43 |
>> > 2) I believe that the original intent of defaulting to a shallow |
| 44 |
>>clone was |
| 45 |
>> > a good idea |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>>Due to the point mentioned above, this is not very useful anymore. |
| 48 |
>>Moreover, now that full checksumming is supported for rsync, the only |
| 49 |
>>advantage of using git is that you get the history (in particular |
| 50 |
>>ChangeLogs). |
| 51 |
> |
| 52 |
>The lack of disk space on some of my systems, metered and slow |
| 53 |
>bandwidth and |
| 54 |
>no need to know what every individual commit and reason for it was, had |
| 55 |
>me |
| 56 |
>sticking to using rsync, after a short sting on using git. |
| 57 |
> |
| 58 |
>I don't think anyone recommended git unless good reasons for one's use |
| 59 |
>case |
| 60 |
>make it an optimal choice. |
| 61 |
>-- |
| 62 |
>Regards, |
| 63 |
>Mick |
Archives