| |||||||||||||
Gentoo debates recruitment schemesGentoo debates recruitment schemesPosted Aug 3, 2012 16:26 UTC (Fri) by shentino (subscriber, #76459)In reply to: Gentoo debates recruitment schemes by dlang Parent article: Gentoo debates recruitment schemes
The problem with using DVCS is data bloat.
The portage tree by its nature consists of files with limited lifetimes, because ebuilds are inherently volatile.
They get created when new versions of the software they control are released, and are deleted periodically when no longer needed.
This creates a lot of churn with file addition and removal that is highly atypical compared to standard repository usage.
I think that this is one of the few cases where CVS is a superior solution.
(Log in to post comments)
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Aug 3, 2012 17:44 UTC (Fri) by jimparis (subscriber, #38647) [Link]
That doesn't make sense. CVS is terrible with file addition and removal -- you can't delete directories and it has no concept of file renames. Git, on the other hand, fully supports renames or even the fact that a new file is substantially similar to an old one. And, critically, changes like adding, deleting, or moving files can be represented as all being part of a single changeset, which CVS cannot do.
Openembedded is using Git just fine and that seems like very similar usage to the portage tree.
Gentoo debates recruitment schemes Posted Aug 3, 2012 17:47 UTC (Fri) by johill (subscriber, #25196) [Link]
Plus, if you actually care all that much about the data transfer, you can use shallow clones.
|
|||||||||||||