From: Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@gmail.com>
To: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexander Gavrilov <angavrilov@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org, Asger Ottar Alstrup <asger@ottaralstrup.dk>
Subject: Re: Narrow clone implementation difficulty estimate
Date: Sat, 16 May 2009 15:17:01 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <fcaeb9bf0905152217g418c7f38w229f71dd047bb466@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m38wl0klxt.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alexander Gavrilov <angavrilov@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> We are considering using Git to manage a large set of mostly binary
>> files (large images, pdf files, open-office documents, etc). The
>> amount of data is such that it is infeasible to force every user
>> to download all of it, so it is necessary to implement a partial
>> retrieval scheme.
>>
>> In particular, we need to decide whether it is better to invest
>> effort into implementing Narrow Clone, or partitioning and
>> reorganizing the data set into submodules (the latter may prove
>> to be almost impossible for this data set). We will most likely
>> develop a new, very simplified GUI for non-technical users,
>> so the details of both possible approaches will be hidden
>> under the hood.
>
> First, there were quite complete, although as far as I know newer
> accepted into git, work on narrow / sparse / subtree / partial
> *checkout*. IIRC the general idea about extening or (ab)using
> assume-unchanged mechanism was accepted, but the problem was in the
> user interface details (I think that porcelain part was quite well
> accepted, except hesitation whether to use/extend existing flag, or
> create new for the purpose of narrow checkout). You can search
> archive for that
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/89900
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/90016
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/77046
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.git/50256
> ...
> should give you some idea what to search for. This is of course
> only part of solution.
FWIW I still maintain the patch series as a merged branch "tp/sco"
under my branch "inst" here
http://repo.or.cz/w/git/pclouds.git?a=shortlog;h=refs/heads/inst
--
Duy
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-16 5:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-14 10:04 Narrow clone implementation difficulty estimate Alexander Gavrilov
2009-05-14 10:39 ` Jakub Narebski
2009-05-16 5:17 ` Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=fcaeb9bf0905152217g418c7f38w229f71dd047bb466@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pclouds@gmail.com \
--cc=angavrilov@gmail.com \
--cc=asger@ottaralstrup.dk \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jnareb@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).