Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-03 Thread Gordon Pettey
On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > It is almost, but not completely unlike it. A simple ChangeLog is a lot > easier ... > > > (Why are people now trying to add middleware layers to indirect the > problem to become invisible in a huge machinery? This is

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 03/02/2016 08:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > > The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse > $PWD to set the path

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 2:48 PM, malc wrote: > I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't > need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the > github API directly... > The main downside to using github would be that you don't get a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 1:14 PM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > > For example, the message of the initial commit 56bd759 appears in some > 18000 files, which accounts for 25 MiB. Not discounting the general issue, I wouldn't count the initial commit. All that space will get taken up

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread malc
I still fail to understand the bikeshedding here - you really don't need a git checkout to get something akin to a changelog. Use the github API directly... The following 1-liner could be trivially productised (maybe even parse $PWD to set the path argument...) curl

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Ian Stakenvicius wrote: > On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries >> generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we had >> only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs were

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Ian Stakenvicius
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/03/16 03:50 AM, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > How is it possible that we have 52 MiB of ChangeLog entries > generated in the 0.5 years since the git conversion, whereas we > had only a total of 103 MiB in the 13.5 years since ChangeLogs > were

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-02 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Wed, 2 Mar 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote: > I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format > quite yet, but did so this afternoon: > http://dev.gentoo.org/~robbat2/201602-portage-survey/ Thank you. > Some remarks about question #2 and #3: > Q2: Reduce local disk

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-01 Thread Patrick Lauer
On 03/02/2016 02:32 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: >> Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is >> the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries? > I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-03-01 Thread Robin H. Johnson
On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 09:01:19AM +0100, Ulrich Mueller wrote: > Have I missed your posting the results of this? Especially, what is > the preferred ordering of ChangeLog entries? I just hadn't finished putting the results into a long-term format quite yet, but did so this afternoon:

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-02-29 Thread Ulrich Mueller
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, Robin H Johnson wrote: > http://goo.gl/forms/5riWkN8VMK > I've put together a quick survey about a number of potential changes > to the rsync distribution that have been bike-shedded about in > various IRC channels and the mailing lists for some time now. > Questions: >

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-02-01 Thread Michał Górny
On Mon, 1 Feb 2016 06:46:26 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > - Augment/replace rsync with git repo that has thick-Manifests, changelogs, > > metadata > > > > You're missing an option to replace

[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-project] Portage repo usage survey and change evaluation

2016-02-01 Thread Rich Freeman
On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 1:11 AM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > - Augment/replace rsync with git repo that has thick-Manifests, changelogs, > metadata > You're missing an option to replace rsync with a git repo that has metadata, but not the other stuff. Of course, this already