Robin H. Johnson писал 2012-05-23 19:47:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 02:42:37PM +0200, Michael Weber wrote:
i've looked at the blockers of "[TRACKER] portage migration to git"
[1] and want to discuss "testing git-cvsserver" [2].
There are two proposed scenarios how to migrate the developers write
access to the portage tree.
The primary reasons to continue to support CVS-style access via
git-cvsserver:
1. Lightweight partial/subtree checkouts
- Git has implemented subtree checkouts, but they still bring down
a
fairly large packfile.
2. Arches were Git repos are too heavy (Kumba wanted this for MIPS)
If we can get rid of #2, we're willing to live with #1.
"Clean cut" turns of cvs access on a given and announced timestamp,
rsync-generation/updates is suspended (no input -> no changes), some
magic scripts prepare the git repo (according to [3], some hours
duration) and we all checkout the tree (might be some funny massive
load).
1. You will be given git bundles instead of being allowed to do
initial
clone. That way it's just a resumable HTTP download.
2. rsync generation is NOT going away. Users will still be using it.
Another good point for repo size
https://git.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/GitFaq#How_do_I_use_git_for_large_projects.2C_where_the_repository_is_large.2C_say_approaching_1_TB.2C_but_a_checkout_is_only_a_few_hundred_MB.3F_Will_every_developer_need_1_TB_of_local_disk_space.3F
--
Best Regards,
Alexey 'Alexxy' Shvetsov
Petersburg Nuclear Physics Institute, NRC Kurchatov Institute,
Gatchina, Russia
Department of Molecular and Radiation Biophysics
Gentoo Team Ru
Gentoo Linux Dev
mailto:alexx...@gmail.com
mailto:ale...@gentoo.org
mailto:ale...@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
