From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j2MEJ5S0023166 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:06 GMT Received: from mx1.shlink.ch ([217.148.0.19]) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DDkDo-0004xZ-Hq for gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 14:19:04 +0000 Received: from localhost (spamfilter [217.148.0.24]) by mx1.shlink.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3293015463 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:17:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from mx1.shlink.ch ([217.148.0.19]) by localhost (spamfilter.shlink.ch [217.148.0.24]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 49543-08 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:09:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.10.5] (range21-65.shlink.ch [217.148.7.65]) by mx1.shlink.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3EA15331 for ; Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:17:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <42403767.3010801@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:19:03 +0000 From: Simon Stelling User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050315) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en Precedence: bulk List-Post: , , List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@robin.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal for an alternative portage tree sync method References: <200503220715.02669.gentoo-dev@wizy.org> <1111499711.7251.16.camel@localhost> In-Reply-To: <1111499711.7251.16.camel@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at shlink.ch X-Archives-Salt: f70aa0ea-8b72-401e-96d4-15eb305d807a X-Archives-Hash: 3154d675782a84e15ebdbe6e67e46c47 Patrick Lauer wrote: > Personally I like the idea of alternative synchronization mechanisms, > but rsync (sucky as it is) still seems to be the least sucky we have > found yet ;-) rsync doesn't suck, ask my backups ;) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list