From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Brian Gerst Subject: Re: rsync deprecated but promoted? Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:47:16 -0400 Message-ID: <43382614.6080907@didntduck.org> References: <20050925163201.GA29198@tumblerings.org> <4d4586301dca616f42880612fae01492@cream.org> <20050926133204.GB21019@pasky.or.cz> <433808B2.3070508@didntduck.org> <20050926163604.GC21019@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Martin Coxall , Zack Brown , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Sep 26 18:49:19 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EJw7k-0007am-2B for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:46:40 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932393AbVIZQqI (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:46:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932418AbVIZQqI (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:46:08 -0400 Received: from quark.didntduck.org ([69.55.226.66]:36493 "EHLO quark.didntduck.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932357AbVIZQp6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:45:58 -0400 Received: from [172.21.26.77] (ip-2.provia.com [208.224.1.2]) (authenticated) by quark.didntduck.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j8QGjjI05731; Mon, 26 Sep 2005 12:45:45 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20050926163604.GC21019@pasky.or.cz> Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis wrote: > Dear diary, on Mon, Sep 26, 2005 at 04:41:54PM CEST, I got a letter > where Brian Gerst told me that... > >>The other problem with HTTP vs. rsync is that the HTTP fetch will walk >>the entire tree down to the root to verify it has every object. While >>this isn't a bad thing it's usually unnecessary when it's all in one big >>pack file. > > > Is that really the case? I believe it will walk only to the original ref > and assume everything before is complete. (Actually, it doesn't even > seem to honor the --recover patch anymore, which isn't so nice > especially in case some objects disappeared from your database and you > would like to get them back. Happenned to me.) I was talking about the initial pull. It does stop at the previous head for updates. -- Brian Gerst