On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:47:53PM +0200, Ville Skyttä wrote: > > On 12/12/2011 10:29 PM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > > > > > Patches should never be in the lookaside cache, because > > > it is very difficult to view them. > > > > IMO if that'd be a consideration, the lookaside cache shouldn't really > > exist at all, everything should be in git instead. > > > To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical > conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is > a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into > version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in > terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's > machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then > contain every single new tarball the package ever had. I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was. I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of binary data in each release.) --b. > > So I think for me, lookaside isn't there to separate data from upstream from > data generated by Fedora -- it's there to supplement the SCM when a file is > not suitable for direct inclusion into the SCM. > > -Toshio > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
