On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Samuel Tardieu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18/04, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > | > However, having it synced periodically rather than after every commit is > | > an annoyance. > | > | True, but it won't change anytime soon because it would place more > | load, and require more locking (since there is no guarantee a git sync > | will finish before the next commit occurs). > > More load? Come on, you are doing 48 "svn update" a day right now by > syncing every 30 minutes without even knowing if a commit took place or > not. What I am proposing would make one "svn update" per svn commit.
I know you think this is personal, as per your email below, but it really isn't. I had it set up to do it after every commit, and it drove our load average up a noticeable amount. As such, I stopped doing it and set it to run every 30 minutes. > I know that you don't like git, but I was happy to see that you volunteered > anyway to setup the GIT repository when the person who was supposed to > do it became MIA. But now that you have done the hard part, I don't > understand why you explicitly refuse to do the small part which is > needed to make the GIT repository that you populated easy and pleasant > to use. I'm not sure why you think this is some personal vendetta I have. I tried what you ask, it causes noticeably more load, so i stopped doing it. I can't see how only being updated every 30 minutes is somehow "less easy and pleasant to use". This is the price you pay for not being the main version control system. The same is true of the mercurial mirror, it is only updated every 30 minutes. I have not discriminated against git in any way, shape or form, and in fact had tried what you suggest before moving to this model. FWIW, if the git repo or the mercurial repo started seriously driving up the load average of the server, we would turn them off, because neither is the main version control system of gcc. This is just the price you pay for not being the official repo. --Dan
