-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/06/14 18:45, Andrew Savchenko wrote: > Why are you saying that git is inefficient with large projects? Because it is.
> It was developed with efficiency in mind in the first place. Not for big projects. > And kernel guys will likely disagree with "git is not great with > crazy big projects" statement Not the last time I chatted to any of them, nor the last time I saw Linus say anything about this. > And with git kernel bisection and other complicated (in terms or > data manipulation) operations are quite fast even on old hardware. The Linux repository is nowhere near Portage-big. Rich mentions one of the reasons. Another is that for Linux, they very carefully decided to throw away history to make migration easier. I don't think we're about to throw away history for Portage. See also the Facebook link Julian posted. As Sergei linked, Facebook "solved" this by not using git. Personally I tend to believe that if git can't handle your project, you are doing something wrong in terms of modularity. But in the "real world", that's not always amendable. - -- Alexander berna...@gentoo.org https://secure.plaimi.net/~alexander -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iF4EAREIAAYFAlOYUrAACgkQRtClrXBQc7XyoQD6AhPbhXqL4D7chnYnNF28+wGK oy+7MuNwiSgeQRCZk2EBAImLz2m2lEeMLrnGqUR+EKiROo+yWQhWPZ8tqCmB0kPO =PYpt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
