On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 08:12:03PM -0500, Dan Meltzer wrote: > On 12/26/05, Lares Moreau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 2005-12-27 at 00:59 +0000, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > > On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:45:00 +0100 Stefan Schweizer > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > | That will increase the sync time for all of our users - can we please > > > | keep this info out of the sync-tree? > > > > > > Learn to use the rsync exclude list. > > > > > I think the point was that the 'average' user needs to pull it as well > > and has _no_ use for it. > > > > There are already complaints about syncs taking to long. > > The complaints was about the cache, not about the actual sync time
Complaints about both actually- try sync'ing on a crap connection. Rsync doesn't scale well the larger the dataset gets (the fact it still performs well is a testament to it being mostly a damn fine tool). We've got at least a 2.4mB overhead just for doing filelist/chksum transfers; that's not getting into pulling the _actual_ updates. > This is what, maybe the equivilent of a new ebuild once, and a -rX any > time somethings changed? It won't effect much at all and end up being > a lot more helpful (and quickly implemented) than waiting around for > someone to write a web database and pushing that through. Quicker balanced against proper; debate right now is if it's the proper place to do this (thus address that concern) :) > We have metadata.xml's, why not use them? We have ebuilds, why don't we stick it there? Arguement doesn't work well there ;) (No I'm not advocating tagging this into ebuilds btw). ~harring
pgph86K44E7lU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
