From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: Figured out how to get Mozilla into git Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <9e4733910606081917l11354e49q25f0c4aea40618ea@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90606082006t5c6a5623q4b9cf7b036dad1e5@mail.gmail.com> <46a038f90606091814n1922bf25l94d913238b260296@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Jon Smirl , git X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Sat Jun 10 03:43:23 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 1FosVU-0000HT-2I for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Sat, 10 Jun 2006 03:43:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1750823AbWFJBnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:43:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751352AbWFJBnR (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:43:17 -0400 Received: from smtp.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:19078 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750823AbWFJBnQ (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 21:43:16 -0400 Received: from shell0.pdx.osdl.net (fw.osdl.org [65.172.181.6]) by smtp.osdl.org (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5A1hDgt012656 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NO); Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:43:14 -0700 Received: from localhost (shell0.pdx.osdl.net [10.9.0.31]) by shell0.pdx.osdl.net (8.13.1/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k5A1hBwJ005857; Fri, 9 Jun 2006 18:43:12 -0700 To: Martin Langhoff In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0 required=5 tests= X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63-osdl_revision__1.75__ X-MIMEDefang-Filter: osdl$Revision: 1.135 $ X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.36 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Fri, 9 Jun 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > That's like 20% of the original, with all the obvious distribution > advantages. Btw, does anybody know roughly how much data a initial "cvs co" takes on the mozilla repo? Git will obviously get the whole history, and that will inevitably be bigger than getting a single check-out, but it's not necessarily orders of magnitude bigger. It could be that getting a whole git archive is not _that_ much more expnsive than getting a single version, considering how well history compresses (eg the kernel git arhive isn't orders of magnitude bigger than a single compressed tar-ball of the sources). At that point, it's probably a pretty usable alternative. (Although, to be fair, we almost certainly have to improve "git-rev-list --objects --all" performance on that thing, since that's going to otherwise make it totally impossible to do initial clones using the native git protocol, and make git look bad). Linus