Re: Resumable clone/Gittorrent (again)

From: Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton <luke.leighton@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 7, 2011, 15:59 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTikKn1+2OX1KPy+9US_yX=E6+CiaCTTB6yqnAWwW@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1101061956470.22191@xanadu.home>

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 3:21 AM, Nicolas Pitre <nico@fluxnic.net> wrote:

Show 5 quoted lines

>> The last thing I like about these chains is that the number of chains
>> is reasonable. It won't increase too fast over time (as compared to
>> the number of commits). As such it maps well to BitTorrent's "pieces".
>
> My problem right now is that I don't see how this maps well to Git.

 bittorrent as "just another file getting method" maps very well.

 only with some modifications to the bittorrent protocol would the
concept map well to bittorrent "pieces" because the pieces are at
present a) fixed size b) defined by a heuristic based on the file size
(logarithmic) so that the number of pieces are kept to within a
reasonable limit.

 bottom line: my take on this is (sorry to say, nguyen) that i don't
believe bittorrent "pieces" map well to the chains concept, unless the
chains are perfectly fixed identical sizes [which they could well be?
am i mistaken about this?]

l.