Re: Re: more git updates..

Andrea Arcangeli
2005-04-13T10:19:43Z

On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> And my entire 2.6.12-rc2 BK tree, unchecked out, is about 220MB, which
> is more dense than CVS.

Yep, this is why I mentioned SCCS format too, I didn't know it was even
smaller, but I expected a similar density from SCCS.

> Note: I'm _not_ arguing with your sentiments towards CVS. However, I
> think the space usage point still stands.

If it wasn't for network synchronization it almost wouldn't matter, but
fetching 2.8G uncompressible when I could simply fetch 220MB
compressible (that will compress with zlib at little cost during rsync
to less than 78M), sounds a bit overkill.

> What is the space usage behaviour when you have multiple git trees?

Multiple trees in the sense of pulls from multiple developers aren't
more costly than a normal checkin, due the "soft hardlink" property of
the hashes. It's just every checkin taking lots of space, and generating
a new uncompressible blobs every time a changeset touches one file.