"Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > On 8/6/07, Matthieu Moy <Matthieu.Moy@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > Using dumb protocols it's impossible to do either. >> >> That's not exactly true. You can't be as efficient with dumb protocols > > You are right -- I should have said: it's pretty hard, and we haven't > put the effort ;-) Yes, that seems more accurate. >> (its ancestor, >> GNU Arch, also had a way to be network-efficient on dumb protocols). > > Do I remember your name from gnuarch-users? Possibly so, yes. I also remembered yours from the old good time where people started explaining why they unsubscribed the list and migrated to something better ;-). > -- that Arch/tla was never particularly efficient, and fetches of > large updates were slow and painful. Surely it was efficient on > paper though :-p It was actually efficient in terms of bandwidth. You downloaded only the needed pieces (this has to do with the fact that the original author wrote it at a time when he had only a slow modem connection). But badly pipelined, and local operations were slow, so the result was obviously _very_ far from what git can do. -- Matthieu - 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
