[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Patrick Lauer wrote: > > Notice the --whole-file part there. Are there perhaps plans to remove this? Before the reversed ChangeLogs, this option was useful, but perhaps now removing it would really lower the traffic? One would have to make a bunch of tests over 1-2 months,

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Luca Barbato posted on Sat, 27 Feb 2016 14:14:12 +0100 as excerpted: > On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: >> That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically >> added to portage for infra to use, because appending entries to >> existing files is vastly easier and more

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 02/27/2016 11:50 PM, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: >> On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: >>> That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically >>> added to portage for infra to use, because appending entries to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 02:14:12PM +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: > > That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically > > added to portage for infra to use, because appending entries to existing > > files is vastly easier and more performant

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Especially if the changelog files are broken up by year or so. On Sat, Feb 27, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Luca Barbato wrote: > On 24/02/16 01:33, Duncan wrote: > > That option is there, and indeed, a patch providing it was specifically > > added to portage for infra to use, because

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Rich Freeman wrote: > > Clearly it doesn't increase by a factor of 1 every year The yearly increase of the factor is rather precisely 1: According to current data, it is .95, see below. With xz compression for squashfs, it is even 1.4! (Note: increase _of_ the factor, not _by_

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 7:59 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> And currently the git history is still almost empty... >>> >> >> If you want pre-migration history you need to fetch that separately. > > How? Neither on gitweb.gentoo.org nor on

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> And currently the git history is still almost empty... >> > > If you want pre-migration history you need to fetch that separately. How? Neither on gitweb.gentoo.org nor on github I found an obvious repository with this data. > It is about 1.7G. >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > > And currently the git history is still almost empty... > If you want pre-migration history you need to fetch that separately. It is about 1.7G. Considering that this represents a LOT more than 2-3 years of history

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Gordon Pettey wrote: >> >> Already now this means that you need 2 (or already 3?) times the >> disk space as for an rysnc mirror; multiply all numbers by 4 >> if you used squashfs to store the tree. [...] > > Or, in 2-3 years, maybe people will stop with the hyperbole

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 1:12 AM, Martin Vaeth wrote: > Luis Ressel wrote: > > > > That would require a local git clone. And that's exactly what those who > > still want Changelogs are trying to avoid. > > You need even a deep git clone with full history. > >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 25/02/16 08:59, Kent Fredric wrote: > On 25 February 2016 at 21:02, Consus wrote: >> Well, we do have one >> >> https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/dev-lang/perl >> >> I bet folks want to check out what's new in their local copy of >> Portage tree. > > > With a

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 25 February 2016 at 21:02, Consus wrote: > Well, we do have one > > https://gitweb.gentoo.org/repo/gentoo.git/log/dev-lang/perl > > I bet folks want to check out what's new in their local copy of Portage > tree. With a custom, portage oriented, on-demand log generator

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 18:46 Thu 25 Feb, Kent Fredric wrote: > I'm considering bolting together some Perl that would allow you to run > a small HTTP service rooted in a git repo dir, and would then generate > given changes files on demand and then cache their results somehow. > > Then you could have a "Live changes

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Luis Ressel wrote: > > That would require a local git clone. And that's exactly what those who > still want Changelogs are trying to avoid. You need even a deep git clone with full history. Already now this means that you need 2 (or already 3?) times the disk space as for an

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 25 February 2016 at 18:03, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Which I am (running from the git repo), and that ability to (as a user, > easily) actually track all that extra data was one of my own biggest > reasons for so looking forward to the git switch for so long, and is now > one of

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 23:35:57 +1300 as excerpted: > Though personally I feel for the goal of stabilization tracking, you > aught to be analysing the git repo. Not only can you then see when a > given package was stabilised, but you can see the other packages that > were

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 21:16:13 +0100 Luis Ressel wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:18:55 -0800 > Raymond Jennings wrote: > > > As far as changelog generation, what about causing the changelogs to > > be autogenerated by the end user's computer? Divide and

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02/24/2016 12:16 PM, Luis Ressel wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:18:55 -0800 Raymond Jennings > wrote: > >> As far as changelog generation, what about causing the changelogs >> to be autogenerated by the end user's computer?

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Wed, 24 Feb 2016 11:18:55 -0800 Raymond Jennings wrote: > As far as changelog generation, what about causing the changelogs to > be autogenerated by the end user's computer? Divide and conquer. That would require a local git clone. And that's exactly what those who still

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Seems like there's a trade off in resource usage re: git vs rsync Rsync seems to be relatively cheap, but has a fixed part of its overhead. Probably one of the reasons that you get temp-banned from the mirrors if you sync too often. Git overhead appears ot be higher on the variable parts but

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 24 February 2016 at 20:29, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > I guess another way of putting it in the context of changelogs, would be > that if gentoo were using git merges correctly, a changelog summary > generator could simply take the high-level merge summary comments and > turn that

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Kent Fredric posted on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 18:49:06 +1300 as excerpted: > But I'm sure at least one person out there has probably gone looking for > a changelog to see when something got stabilized/keyworded. In particular, I tend to be looking for this level of "introduced-on ymd to the kde

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On 24 February 2016 at 17:24, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > Particularly when the basic changelog information is there, it's simply > quibbling about chronological or reverse-chronological order we're doing > now, and people who /really/ care about it by rights should be going > straight

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Vadim A. Misbakh-Soloviov posted on Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:38:55 +0600 as excerpted: >> Is this actually true? For the typical use case of daily or close to >> daily updates I'd think that git would be much more efficient. > As there were noticed multiple times on the list already, this should >

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

> Is this actually true? For the typical use case of daily or close to > daily updates I'd think that git would be much more efficient. As there were noticed multiple times on the list already, this should not ever happen, at least, until git will support resumable fetches/clones/whatever.

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Rich Freeman posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:53:45 -0500 as excerpted: > In the degenerate case where nothing has changed, an rsync still needs > to walk the full tree and send a file list, while git just sends a > commit ID and terminates. Technicality: While I believe you're correct for pure

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:50 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > > On 02/24/2016 01:33 AM, Duncan wrote: >> >> IMO, what's actually happening here is the slow deprecation of >> rsync mirrors in favor of git. I doubt they'd be created at all >> if gentoo were > > I don't agree to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:33 PM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote: > > Which means it's the tools that expect reverse-chronological order that > must change. Either that, or people /that/ concerned about the > changelogs can simply switch to the git repos and use the existing git > tools to

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 02/24/2016 01:33 AM, Duncan wrote: > > IMO, what's actually happening here is the slow deprecation of > rsync mirrors in favor of git. I doubt they'd be created at all > if gentoo were I don't agree to this at all. For one thing git is very

[gentoo-dev] Re: Bug #565566: Why is it still not fixed?

Patrick Lauer posted on Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:53:32 +0100 as excerpted: > On 02/23/2016 07:07 PM, Alec Warner wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Patrick Lauer > > wrote: >> >> See https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=565566 >> >>