On Tue, 2011-12-13 at 14:06 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> To some extent I agree with both sgallagh's sentiment and the logical
> conclusion you're drawing. However, I think the lookaside cache is
> a necessary optimization/compromise to the ideal of putting everything into
> version control, though. Current technology would make it prohibitive in
> terms of packager time (and for some packages, space on developer's
> machines) to put tarballs into git as the cloned repository would then
> contain every single new tarball the package ever had.
I'd be curious to know how expensive that actually was.
I'd think delta-compression could make it quite reasonable for the
typical project. (Exceptions including things like games with lots of
binary data in each release.)
Nearly all packages are released as a compressed tarball. So any change
in the package is likely to result in a delta of the binary image that
is close enough to 100% as makes no difference.