Re: Git-aware HTTP transport

["Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org>]

Nicolas Pitre <nico@cam.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008, david@lang.hm wrote:
> 
> > and for cloneing (and especially thing like linux-next where you essentially
> > re-clone daily) letting the pack get cached is probably a very good thing.
> 
> I hope that people recloning linux-next daily are very few.  This is an 
> incredible waste of bandwidth, regardless of the protocol used, dumb or 
> not.  A standard fetch with a remote tracking branch (with -f or with a 
> plus sign on the "fetch" line in your config file) should be all that's 
> needed to significantly reduce the amount of data needed to transfer.

Or at least clone with --reference.  You get about the same benefit if
your local reference repository is fairly current, say with a stable
upstream like Linus' own tree.

-- 
Shawn.