On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:59:52AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 05:50:05AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:34:04AM +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:06:42AM +0000, Tim Waugh wrote: > > >> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:49 +0000, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >> > Why not put everything in a single git repository? > > >> > > >> That would require every packager to check out the entire package set, > > >> all revisions, all branches. No thanks. > > > > > >Jesse can probably estimate for us how large this will be. > > > > > >I've found that git deals very well with large repositories that have > > >lots of files and lots of history (kernel, qemu). And you only ever > > >have to download it once, since you can use "git fetch" to make local > > >working copies. > > > > A full git repo was 5.7G. I sure as hell don't want to pull that down > > when I'm only interested in a few packages. > > > > (The CVS repo is 16G on the server side if you are wondering.) > > Fair enough - it doesn't make sense since the combined repo would > be so large. I was wondering if you could set up some meta repository, which had a GIT sub-module for each package, but it seems sub-modules always have to specify an explicit commit hash so they wouldn't seemlessly follow changes. Daniel -- |: Red Hat, Engineering, London -o- http://people.redhat.com/berrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org -o- http://ovirt.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: GnuPG: 7D3B9505 -o- F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 :| -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
