From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg KH Subject: Re: [Census] So who uses git? Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:12:40 -0800 Message-ID: <20060129181240.GA11721@kroah.com> References: <46a038f90601251810m1086d353ne8c7147edee4962a@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90601272133o53438987ka6b97c21d0cdf921@mail.gmail.com> <1138446030.9919.112.camel@evo.keithp.com> <7vzmlgt5zt.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net> <1138529385.9919.185.camel@evo.keithp.com> <43DCA495.9040301@gorzow.mm.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Keith Packard , Junio C Hamano , cworth@cworth.org, Martin Langhoff , Linus Torvalds , Git Mailing List X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sun Jan 29 19:13:57 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 1F3H3U-0001j5-C3 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 19:13:41 +0100 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751095AbWA2SNe (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:13:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751093AbWA2SNe (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:13:34 -0500 Received: from mail.kroah.org ([69.55.234.183]:41140 "EHLO perch.kroah.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751095AbWA2SNd (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Jan 2006 13:13:33 -0500 Received: from [192.168.0.10] (dsl093-040-174.pdx1.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.40.174]) (authenticated) by perch.kroah.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k0TICuK03034; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:12:57 -0800 Received: from greg by echidna.kroah.org with local (masqmail 0.2.19) id 1F3H2X-33F-00; Sun, 29 Jan 2006 10:12:41 -0800 To: Radoslaw Szkodzinski Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43DCA495.9040301@gorzow.mm.pl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Sun, Jan 29, 2006 at 12:18:45PM +0100, Radoslaw Szkodzinski wrote: > > The only drawback is local cloning. This operation is like 4x slower > than plain copying of the repository. Probably because it works like an > ssh clone - creates a pack, copies it, then unpacks. This is just > inefficient on a local machine. Have you tried the "-l" option for cloneing locally? It's _very_ fast, even for my tiny little old laptop. If you add a "-n" that will not checkout the source tree, so you can compare the time of cloning with the checkout portion. thanks, greg k-h