From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.pbcl.net ([88.198.119.4] helo=hetzner.pbcl.net) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1Szlji-00058Q-HL for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:42:30 +0200 Received: from elite.brightsigndigital.co.uk ([81.142.160.137] helo=[172.30.1.145]) by hetzner.pbcl.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1SzlYJ-0007qw-8U for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 11:30:43 +0200 From: Phil Blundell To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 10:30:42 +0100 In-Reply-To: <660D912D-3A89-418B-B091-145567C25656@dominion.thruhere.net> References: <1344475516-27640-1-git-send-email-raj.khem@gmail.com> <9145620D-0D9C-4269-9ED4-B0E2E81086E3@dominion.thruhere.net> <1384904.B8yRp5DXBX@helios> <1344589634.23275.284.camel@phil-desktop> <660D912D-3A89-418B-B091-145567C25656@dominion.thruhere.net> X-Mailer: Evolution 3.0.2- Message-ID: <1344591043.23275.286.camel@phil-desktop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] gcc: Switch SRC_URI to use svn X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 09:42:30 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 11:22 +0200, Koen Kooi wrote: > Op 10 aug. 2012, om 11:07 heeft Phil Blundell het volgende geschreven: > > > On Fri, 2012-08-10 at 09:47 +0100, Paul Eggleton wrote: > >> On Friday 10 August 2012 10:03:06 Koen Kooi wrote: > >>> Op 9 aug. 2012, om 03:25 heeft Khem Raj het volgende > >> geschreven: > >>>> svn tar balls are 96M as compared to 1.3G git tars > >>>> its unnessary to suck in that much of data. > >>> > >>> That's indeed a big difference and also expected, with svn you only get > >>> revision N and N-1, with git you get everything. But even so, I can fetch > >>> that 1.3GB a *lot* faster than that 0.1GB svn. Maybe I'm on the wrong side > >>> of the ocean, but that gcc svn server is sloooooooooooooooooooooow. > >> > >> FWIW the git option was much, much, much slower for us here in the UK. > > > > Maybe we should just go back to using the released tarballs for gcc > > rather than any sort of SCM checkout. That would be an 80MB download > > for the tar.bz2 and of course you can get it from your local mirror. > > > > I think the original reason we switched to using the SCM checkout was > > that, at the time, we were carrying around a huge number of backported > > patches that hadn't quite made it into any released version yet. > > We pointed it at the release branch, so updating from x.y.0 to x.y.4 was just a srcrev change. But the same can be done by exporting the patches with git-format-patch and importing them into the OE tree. Right. Or, once x.y.4 actually gets released, it would be available as a tarball in its own right anyway. The only time when it's at all tricky is the period just before that happens, when there are potentially-important fixes in the gcc-x.y branch that aren't yet in any released version. But, as you say, we can just import those as patches and I think/hope their number should be fairly limited. p.