From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Leo Famulari <leo@famulari.name>
Subject: Re: gnu: abbaye: Update to 2.0.1 from new repository.
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:03:16 -0500
Message-ID: <20170124010316.GA14752@jasmine>
References: <87d1foe8n3.fsf@openmailbox.org> <87efzxmyd6.fsf@gmail.com>
	<87lgu2j65y.fsf@openmailbox.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Return-path: <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56853)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1cVpW8-0002kV-Lz
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:03:25 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1cVpW5-0004OX-Is
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:03:24 -0500
Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:57544)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <leo@famulari.name>) id 1cVpW5-0004OB-1T
	for guix-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 20:03:21 -0500
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87lgu2j65y.fsf@openmailbox.org>
List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution."
	<guix-devel.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:guix-devel@gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guix-devel>,
	<mailto:guix-devel-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org
Sender: "Guix-devel" <guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org>
To: Adonay Felipe Nogueira <adfeno@openmailbox.org>
Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org

On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:46:01AM -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> About suggestion to use tarball snapshots instead of git-fetch: That's
> interesting, I once read that `guix refresh` would behave better with
> git-fetch methods than with url-fetch methods. But, as I found out
> recently, it does seem that git-fetch imposes heavy load due to the
> current innability to make shallow clones. So I'm now waiting for
> others' input in this matter: Should I reformat the patch such that
> url-fetch is used instead?

I prefer to use url-fetch with a tarball. First, upstream maintainers
have typically prepared the tarball beyond what can be found from a Git
tag. Second, it prevents the package from depending on Git, which is a
large package.