From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LWIgS-0003J3-T3 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 08 Feb 2009 23:03:30 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B77A0E03DC; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91677E03DC for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:03:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.22.10] (ip68-4-152-120.oc.oc.cox.net [68.4.152.120]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D72986521F for ; Sun, 8 Feb 2009 23:03:25 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <498F64D4.4080303@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:03:48 -0800 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (X11/20081209) 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 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] DIGESTS metadata variable for cache validation References: <498758E6.5080609@gentoo.org> <1234045916.24784.1373.camel@localhost> <498E17E6.8060407@gentoo.org> <20090208221814.722f573a@snowmobile> <498F5FF5.50203@gentoo.org> <20090208224721.4193ca45@snowmobile> In-Reply-To: <20090208224721.4193ca45@snowmobile> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: 9d6c504d-6b71-451d-8f3b-441c007c44c8 X-Archives-Hash: b3ff85d09e93796322c075b6e945d7a0 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:43:01 -0800 > Zac Medico wrote: >>> Sticking metadata cache files under version control really is a >>> perfect example of doing it wrong... >> Well, if you want to use timestamps, the alternative is to >> distributors to use a protocol which preserves timestamps. This >> creates an unnecessary burden. Allowing distribution of metadata >> cache via version control systems is more flexible. > > No, it's just encouraging bad development practices. It seems like you're making a rather arbitrary judgment. > If you're concerned that setting up an rsync mirror is difficult, why > not make a tool that generates a tarball, including metadata, for a > repo, and have people run that on a cron and distribute it via http? > That's just as easy to host, and anyone running an overlay big enough > to make this impractical already has the resources to deal with rsync > instead... I'm not saying that it necessarily "difficult" or "beyond the resources", but it does create an unnecessary burden. I think that it adds a significant level of convenience to be able to use a version control system as a single distribution channel. - -- Thanks, Zac -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkmPZNMACgkQ/ejvha5XGaNqcgCg3GAWiklumvFhBtbWDYBPGz2+ u6IAoJ5eCaytti4FSmOHEtIrLSm10W4O =n0eG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----