| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3Posted Oct 2, 2005 20:52 UTC (Sun) by RMetz (guest, #27939)In reply to: Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3 by Blaisorblade Parent article: Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3
Why in the name of the FSM would you do a git pull over a 56k line you sick bastard? ; )
All jocularity aside, several gotchas due to patches accepted were reported, I suppose I unfairly assumed they were overly invasive.
(Log in to post comments)
Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3 Posted Oct 3, 2005 0:24 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] Indeed, that's pretty bad because many objects are packed, so you have to pull large packs (line 60 Mb - that's many hours). For repositories that are not packed (e.g. git), one can use "git-fetch -t", which gets the current tree but no historic objects. I cannot wait when the git protocol is supported on kernel.org. Maybe I'll try the Mercurial repository (http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6/) - Mercurial seems to be more friendly to us, poor dial-up users. Although it's not of much value for me it I cannot track Jeff Garzik's netdev repository.
Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3 Posted Oct 3, 2005 7:16 UTC (Mon) by RMetz (guest, #27939) [Link] Oh, and sorry for the reply to myself, but the key management thing was what really caught my eye. Look at the long change-log. Not a huge deal, and I really don't have a problem with it going in, I just thought stuff like that wasn't going in after rc1.
I'm probably still off on how this is going to work.
Kernel prepatch 2.6.14-rc3 Posted Oct 3, 2005 17:12 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] Actually, most of the present slowness with git (over HTTP) is really roundtrip latency rather than bandwidth. Over a 56K modem, you'd probably be as happy with git as with anything else for getting that much data.
|
|
||||||||||||