On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 12 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > >
> > > > But since the thing needs mirroring for non-git uses too, and since
> > > > rsync generally _works_ apart from the slight race-condition issue,
> > >
> > > ... and git would probably change the pack structure (i.e. which objects
> > > are in which packs, or even loose) which would be too bad for all those
> > > HTTP leechers ...
> >
> > I don't see how that would be more of a concern than the current
> > situation with occasional repacks.
>
> Oh well. I did not want to get bashed for something which is probably no
> problem,
Sorry, far from me to sound as if I was bashing you.
> but I suspected that the two mirror machines could get out of
> sync, which could well mean that the new packs would have to be downloaded
> _twice_. As I said, probably no problem.
In theory that should not happen since all mirrors would get the same
updates in the same steps. But in practice if one mirror fails to get
updated for whatever reason then the next time around it could have a
bigger pack instead of two smaller ones for the same set of objects.
> But it would become a non-problem when the HTTP transport would learn to
> read and interpret the .idx files, basically constructing thin packs from
> parts of the .pack files ("Content-Range:" comes to mind)...
Woooh.
Nicolas
-
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