lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:56:21 +0300
From:	Al Boldi <>
Cc:	Jakub Narebski <>, Andreas Ericsson <>,
	Johannes Schindelin <>,
	Phillip Susi <>,
	Linus Torvalds <>,
	Jing Xue <>,,
Subject: Re: git guidance wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:04:48 +0300, Al Boldi said:
> > Because WORKFLOW C is transparent, it won't affect other workflows.  So
> > you could still use your normal WORKFLOW B in addition to WORKFLOW C,
> > gaining an additional level of version control detail at no extra cost
> > other than the git-engine scratch repository overhead.
> >
> > BTW, is git efficient enough to handle WORKFLOW C?
> Imagine the number of commits a 'make clean; make' will do in a kernel
> tree, as it commits all those .o files... :)

.o files???

It probably goes without saying, that gitfs should have some basic 
configuration file to setup its transparent behaviour, and which would most 
probably contain an include / exclude file-filter mask, and probably other 
basic configuration options.  But this is really secondary to the 
implementation, and the question remains whether git is efficient enough.

IOW, how big is the git commit overhead as compared to a normal copy?



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists