From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Local clone/fetch with cogito is glacial Date: Mon, 22 May 2006 15:23:44 -0700 Message-ID: <447239F0.9030705@zytor.com> References: <4470FC21.6010104@zytor.com> <44722A8F.9020609@zytor.com> <20060522220206.GA10488@pasky.or.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sean , git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue May 23 00:24:12 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FiIos-0003gd-Qv for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 23 May 2006 00:24:11 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751275AbWEVWYH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 18:24:07 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751278AbWEVWYH (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 18:24:07 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:59271 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751275AbWEVWYF (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 May 2006 18:24:05 -0400 Received: from [192.168.10.106] (63-207-7-10.ded.pacbell.net [63.207.7.10]) (authenticated bits=0) by terminus.zytor.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k4MMNkHT005470 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 May 2006 15:23:47 -0700 User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060501) To: Petr Baudis In-Reply-To: <20060522220206.GA10488@pasky.or.cz> X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.88.2, clamav-milter version 0.88.2 on localhost X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on terminus.zytor.com Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Petr Baudis wrote: > > What about incremental fetches using git-fetch? From a quick scan of the > git-fetch automagic tags following code, it seems to be even > significantly more expensive than Cogito's (in terms of number of > forks). > Well, I haven't used git-fetch, so I can't comment on that one. > git-clone has an advantage here since it clones _everything_ while > Cogito fetches only stuff related to the branch you are cloning, and > verifying if what it fetches is sensible for you unfortunately takes a > lot of time. :/ I guess there is no way to verify presence of multiple > objects at once and there is also no way to order local fetch of > multiple objects at once. Note that non-local cg-clones are at least an order of magnitude faster, even when the nonlocal is just git+ssh:. One could presumably do the same thing over a pipe. -hpa