On Sep 5, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Johnathan Gifford wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Sep 5, 2006 at 1:36 PM, in message
> <6DD6862B-8F1B-4D40-8643-7A13A986901E@...>, James Berry
> <jberry@...> wrote:
>> No, we don't plan to change this in the very near term. Yes, we will
>> be changing it somewhere in the mid- term, but I can't tell you to
>> what it will be changed. There's some chance that we may move away
>> from use of rsync altogether, toward a more http- only solution like
>> subversion over http. Or that the rsync hostname will become:
> Who is the who in 'we' that makes these decisions? Better yet, who
> should I try to convince that an http-only solution behind
> Subversion is
> a more practical solution for those of us behind tight firewalls.
> all port 80 is always accessible.
Well, that would be the collective "we", or, perhaps, those with
commit rights to base. Personally, I'm very interested in getting
away from rsync. Factors that might argue against doing that might be:
- Server load of a subversion "update" operation vs rsync.
- Network I/O efficiency differential between the two methods
- Speed differential between the two methods
- Fact that subversion would/might become a dependency, and the fact
that it's not installed on the base os until Leopard.
I can't really quantify any of those at present, except the last. The
first three are more in the "fear" realm than in the "known" realm.
As a potential work-around for you in the short-term, note that our
ports tree _is_ presently available via subversion, over http, so you
could just use subversion to keep up to date, instead of "port sync".