On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 16:31, Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html