On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 05:35:08PM +0000, Duncan wrote: > W. Trevor King posted on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 13:33:46 -0700 as excerpted: > > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 01:29:44PM -0700, W. Trevor King wrote: > >> I don't see any benefit to using rsync vs. a shallow clone as the > >> transmission protocol. > > > > Other than the fact that before you dropped it you'd need to push a > > ‘emerge sync’ that could handle either rsync or Git, stabilize that > > Portage, and then wait for folks to adopt it. > > Portage already handles it. =:^)
Oh, lovely :). Looks like that landed in 2.2.0 with 47e8d22d (Add support for multiple repositories in `emerge --sync`, 2013-07-23). There are older Portages in the tree though (back to 2.1.6.7_p1), so you'd still want to wait until those were gone before dropping rsync. Also, I don't see a way to say “use Git to sync, but keep a shallow repository”. Ideally, we'd want: $ git clone --depth=1 git://git.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage.git for the initial clone (modulo whatever URI), and: $ git pull --depth=1 for subsequent syncs. pym/_emerge/actions.py currently hardcodes ‘git pull’ for the latter, and doesn't seem to have any code for the former. On the other hand, it wouldn't be too terrible to force users to shallow their history manually whenever they felt like it. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
