On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 10:18:39PM +0200, Michał Górny wrote: > Dnia 2014-09-15, o godz. 15:55:35 Anthony G. Basile napisał(a): > > If the argument is that there are no Changelogs in rsync, then > > let's write git hooks to generate them when the repository is > > mirrored to the rsync host. The only problem I see is with this > > is then adding ChangeLog to the manifest and gpg signing it which > > has to be done at the developer's side. But, I think the tree > > that users get from rsync should have the logs. Having *both* a > > ChangeLog file and git log is redundant. > > Can't we just kill rsync then? The whole ChangeLog seems to take > more effort than the actual benefit it gives.
I'm +1 for killing rsync and having everyone use Git. With --shallow clones for folks who don't care about the history, and deep clones for those who do (and you can change your mind both ways), I think everyone gets what they want without messing around with a Git → rsync conversion layer. Of course, it would be nice if the CSV → Git migration added any ChangeLog notes to the associated commit message to avoid losing information, but I imagine it would be hard to automate that and still get readable commit messages ;). I don't see any benefit to using rsync vs. a shallow clone as the transmission protocol. Cheers, Trevor -- This email may be signed or encrypted with GnuPG (http://www.gnupg.org). For more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
