Re: Resumable clone/Gittorrent (again) - stable packs?

[Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net>]

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 16:31, Jeff King <peff@peff.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 07, 2011 at 12:22:07AM -0500, Jeff King wrote:
> the reason I am
> interested in this expanded definition of mirroring is for a few
> features people have been asking for:
>
>  1. restartable clone; any bundle format is easily restartable using
>     standard protocols

This is very important to me. I have failed to establish an initial
repo for a few larger projects, some apache projects and opentaps most
recently. It is getting _really_ frustrating.


>  2. avoid too-big clones; I remember the gentoo folks wanting to
>     disallow full clones from their actual dev machines and push people
>     off to some more static method of pulling. I think not just because
>     of restartability, but because of the load on the dev machines

And of course the lack of restartability causes an ongoing increase in
the load on the machines delivering those large clones.


>  3. people on low-bandwidth servers who fork major projects; if I write
>     three kernel patches and host a git server, I would really like
>     people to only fetch my patches from me and get the rest of it from
>     kernel.org

This is not so much of a problem - can already be handled by cloning
your linux-full.git to a private dir, and only publishing your shallow
"personal patches only" clone, or better still, just a tar-ball of
your 3 patches, or email them, or etc.


So I agree with the big issues being restartable large clones and
lowering server loads.

Zen