casync VS bitkeeper

For arbitrary state changes however, it's better to use something like casync. Note that there are a lot of tunables, implicit and explicit; for package indexing I would particularly think about "how is the index sorted" and "what is the desired chunk size".

If you just want something practical to play with, see casync. Even if it doesn't fit your workflow, or if you think you can do better, chances are you're best off building on top of it or adding patches to it, not starting from scratch.

You probably want casync.

Obligatory link to casync, which implements this better than most alternatives.

(personally, I think more people need to be aware of casync for the update storage/distribution problem. It isn't perfect for every use case, but it's good enough that you're probably better off wrapping/forking it rather than reimplementing it badly from scratch)

Does something like casync (https://github.com/systemd/casync or https://github.com/folbricht/desync) serve any purpose or provide any advantage to propagating rpm changes over rsync?

Software that comes to mind for syncing lots of small files: git (and other source versioning tools), casync (https://github.com/systemd/casync) and a go implementation (https://github.com/folbricht/desync). Not really an answer and I can't think of a way to shoehorn that into your workflow, but maybe it leads you down a useful road.

Casync – A Content-Addressable Data Synchronization Tool\ (15 comments)

This is not historically accurate, even in the narrow context of Git branch names. Git was initially written as a replacement for an old source control system named BitKeeper. BitKeeper had a concept of a “master repo” (the main remote repo); all other copies of the repo were “slave repos”. Example from the BitKeeper docs. Git inherited that naming convention.

> git repositories don't have "slave" branches, just a "master' as in template or origin

That isn't true - master in git comes from master in BitKeeper which did have slave replicas.

https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...

Git was originally based on Bitkeeper which uses the terminology in that way, for example: https://github.com/bitkeeper-scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask

Git was created as a replacement for BitKeeper. BitKeeper does use the terminology master/slave. Thus, Git's use of master is in fact a reference to master/slave, not a master recording.