From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QS116-0002UO-K3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 02 Jun 2011 06:04:24 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 308271C039 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 06:04:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6D831C02D for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 05:30:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.2] (ap.ran.gpi.ru [195.209.218.156]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: pva) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79F771B4008 for ; Thu, 2 Jun 2011 05:30:45 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: better policy for ChageLogs From: Peter Volkov To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: References: <4DD24EBE.5060002@gentoo.org> <201106011739.45691.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <201106011824.06028.dilfridge@gentoo.org> <4DE6CB57.5080709@gentoo.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2011 09:09:04 +0400 Message-ID: <1306991344.4416.37.camel@tablet> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: eeca6cba7705241360fd6d94da0401ed =D0=92 =D0=A1=D1=80=D0=B4, 01/06/2011 =D0=B2 19:37 -0400, Matt Turner =D0= =BF=D0=B8=D1=88=D0=B5=D1=82: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 7:29 PM, Jorge Manuel B. S. Vicetto > wrote: > > To be clear I support the goal to move our tree to git. > > However, I'd like to point out that simply moving to git will leave u= s > > in the same state. ++ ChangeLog files are text to be distributed to our users so they are completely independent of vcs we use. > > Assuming everyone agrees that git is far more useful > > than cvs to check for changes in the tree, a simple but important iss= ue > > remains: the plan is to move the "development tree" to git, but to ke= ep > > the rsync mirrors for users. So the "move to git" doesn't fix the iss= ue > > for users or developers using an rsync tree. >=20 > Temporarily or permanently? >=20 > One of the huge benefits in using git would be really fast emerge > --syncs. Not having some kind of system for migrating users to git > seems like a lot of the benefits are lost. Is git faster then rsync? I've never done any checks but it'll be surprising if it will. Another useful feature of rsync is --exclude that allows some categories to be excluded (for size and speed efficiency), e.g. my servers don't need kde-* and games-*. Also taking into account that we use portage tree on embedded devices where again both size and speed really matters it looks like the answer on your question is "permanently". -- Peter.