FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-23-2012, 05:32 PM
Rich Freeman
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone *if and only if original
> repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after shallow
> clone point respectively
>

Is that going to be a practical condition to maintain?

And how big will the repository actually be? Are we talking a GB or
two, or something orders of magnitude larger?

Rich
 
Old 05-23-2012, 05:35 PM
Alexey Shvetsov
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

Rich Freeman писал 2012-05-23 20:32:
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@gentoo.org>
wrote:


That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone *if and only if
original
repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after
shallow

clone point respectively



Is that going to be a practical condition to maintain?

And how big will the repository actually be? Are we talking a GB or
two, or something orders of magnitude larger?

Rich



Full clone will be about 1G or so but no more then 2. If we will drop
changelog it will be much smaller


--
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:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
 
Old 05-23-2012, 05:38 PM
"Robin H. Johnson"
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 01:32:45PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexey Shvetsov <alexxy@gentoo.org> wrote:
> >
> > That isnt true =) you can commit from shallow clone *if and only if original
> > repo doesnt have a branching and merging points before and after shallow
> > clone point respectively
> Is that going to be a practical condition to maintain?
We're going to have lots of branches and merges.

> And how big will the repository actually be? Are we talking a GB or
> two, or something orders of magnitude larger?
In terms of repo size, we were going to be slicing the history into two
parts:
- fresh start
- historical

The 'fresh start' is what new commits will go on top of, and ranges
40-120MB depending on what git window compression is used.
The historical is ~1.2GB, and if you want a continuous history, you just
use graft to merge the two.

--
Robin Hugh Johnson
Gentoo Linux: Developer, Trustee & Infrastructure Lead
E-Mail : robbat2@gentoo.org
GnuPG FP : 11ACBA4F 4778E3F6 E4EDF38E B27B944E 34884E85
 
Old 05-23-2012, 06:37 PM
Rafael Goncalves Martins
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

-1


--
Rafael Goncalves Martins
Gentoo Linux developer
http://rafaelmartins.eng.br/
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:37 PM
Arun Raghavan
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.
--
Arun Raghavan
http://arunraghavan.net/
(Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:40 PM
Nirbheek Chauhan
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.
>

+1

--
~Nirbheek Chauhan

Gentoo GNOME+Mozilla Team
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:47 PM
Fabio Erculiani
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.

The difference is that while Git is much faster, comes with a very low
WTF/secs rate and really forces you to do things the right way, other
L*********e software is not and I agree with you on this.

my 0.02c ;-)

> --
> Arun Raghavan
> http://arunraghavan.net/
> (Ford_Prefect | Gentoo) & (arunsr | GNOME)
>



--
Fabio Erculiani
 
Old 05-23-2012, 07:51 PM
hasufell
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

+1 for git

I am more used to it, I find it easier to use regarding the utilities
as well as the gui and it is more consistent.
The fact alone that I can update a single directory in CVS without
updating all others can cause breakage, cause repoman checks may be
erroneous.


On 05/23/2012 09:37 PM, Arun Raghavan wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
> systems and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather,
> and it's good enough for you.

This sounds rather emotional to me.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvT/OAAoJEFpvPKfnPDWzgPIH/38QflM4GNiUNo3bC5/8tock
FM03JE1Iln4ThvLl25opwGiO5R8akoD3koroUVPLoWV//QfYmcQIm7k7dJJCk4+m
WSQ6H21fL9v2m6QX7PuJwaENFSFBxu3UFy6BE+39iFJAPBiigH 1hbE0rad/twYdr
xhnHZti1rGbaFBeXxlGmdhJYi7dtndyuZgTu0oQFfE0+sAAK2G Pe5CGLoOFHdtxS
WCMY3C3cB0R7XPoJwUvvt2KmIEXNWfq6rDW3o6so89VdRSNykw MLdK1eZ+MZidIE
61CAJiuIsT4cKX5pbqo72GtU4tUOkQ6jjaJhofAcrSMYKA0Isx YvFAYnKqO4lh4=
=cdBk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
 
Old 05-23-2012, 08:00 PM
Ezequiel Garcia
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Arun Raghavan <ford_prefect@gentoo.org> wrote:
> I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
> Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init systems
> and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
> good enough for you.


Perhaps it would be instructive if you could tell us one advantage of
cvs over git.

(This is me exposing me to your terrible dev-flames, I was feeling too cold
 
Old 05-23-2012, 08:05 PM
Alexey Shvetsov
 
Default Portage Git migration - clean cut or git-cvsserver

Arun Raghavan писал 2012-05-23 22:37:

I, for one, think we should stay with CVS and leave all this git
Linusware to the new-fangled Fedora kids with their fancy init
systems

and tight coupling. CVS was good enough for my grandfather, and it's
good enough for you.


CVS is damn slow. On every cvs up it should stat *all* files and cvs
entryes
in current state its ~212k files in gentoo-x86. It will be sloow on
every machine unless you put all this files in ram


Actual number of usefull files is only about ~60k
(ebuilds,eclasses,metadata.xml,patches)


Its comparable to linux kernel git tree ~42k files

And yes git is much more faster.

PS if ibm s/360 was good for my grandfather why we all use modern
intel pc? Lets stay under 1 MIPS machines like s/360



--
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:alexxyum@gmail.com
mailto:alexxy@gentoo.org
mailto:alexxy@omrb.pnpi.spb.ru
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 06:52 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org