Re: Resumable clone/Gittorrent (again) - stable packs?
- From
- Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>
- Date
- Jan 7, 2011, 10:04 UTC
- Message-ID
- <AANLkTikWKdUE1JoBPmQF-NyacTtoKKD0NZYu_arsqoiW@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20110107053119.GA23177@sigill.intra.peff.net>
On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 16:31, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
Show 7 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 12:22:07AM -0500, Jeff King wrote: > the reason I am > interested in this expanded definition of mirroring is for a few > features people have been asking for: > > 1. restartable clone; any bundle format is easily restartable using > standard protocols
This is very important to me. I have failed to establish an initial repo for a few larger projects, some apache projects and opentaps most recently. It is getting _really_ frustrating.
> 2. avoid too-big clones; I remember the gentoo folks wanting to > disallow full clones from their actual dev machines and push people > off to some more static method of pulling. I think not just because > of restartability, but because of the load on the dev machines
And of course the lack of restartability causes an ongoing increase in the load on the machines delivering those large clones.
> 3. people on low-bandwidth servers who fork major projects; if I write > three kernel patches and host a git server, I would really like > people to only fetch my patches from me and get the rest of it from > kernel.org
This is not so much of a problem - can already be handled by cloning your linux-full.git to a private dir, and only publishing your shallow "personal patches only" clone, or better still, just a tar-ball of your 3 patches, or email them, or etc.
So I agree with the big issues being restartable large clones and lowering server loads.
Zen