Re: [PATCH] proposed v3 source format using .git.tar.gz
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 06:24:15PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 22:04:21 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > bzr and git always ship the complete repository with each working
> > directory. This is why they are called "distributed". Arch seems to be
> > some weird thing in between truly central and truly distributed VCS.
> I am not sure I see this. Arch repositories are distributed,
> and you can pull, branch, and tag off any repository out there in the
> meta-verse. But every directory also has a semi permanent URI; and
> checking pout a branch locally does not end up with you downloading the
> terabytes of stuff in the repo out there.
Lets not exagerate. At least for git the repository will usually be
smaller or only little larger than the working directory. It will
probably compress worse though.
> This might be because you can have more than one project in a
> repo; my repo contains CVS emacs, unicode emacs, as well as most of the
> SELinux packages, etc, and I mirror partially to arch.d.o. I would hate
> to see all of emacs in the local dir of people who just want to check
> out devotee.
> So arch does have a different mechanism of doing distributed
> repositories; but the repositories are distributed in the sense that I
> control one repo, but branches in my repo are children of other
> repositories, and can be merged and tagged back and from,
Out of interest, which of the following actions would need remote
log view (including diffs between revisions)
creating a new commit/revision/tag
reverting a dirty working tree to a clean one
For git/bzr, the answer is usually "no" to all of these. If you have
a "shallow copy" in git, the answers to the first two become
"yes, since you will need it convert to a full copy first" .
> Assuming we consider trying to support arch-like distributed
> version control systems in the new dpkg; it might well be that the
> current approach is too focussed on git/bzr type version control to
> work well with arch.
It most probably is.
Frank Lichtenheld <email@example.com>