Re: Re: more git updates..

Russell King
2005-04-13T09:31:09Z

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > At the rate of 9M for every 198 changeset checkins, that means I'll have
> > to download 2.7G _uncompressible_ (i.e. already compressed with a bad
> > per-file ratio due the too-small files) for a whole pack including all
> > changesets without accounting the original 111MB of the original tree,
> > with rsync -z of git. That compares with 514M _compressible_ with CVS
> > format on-disk, and with ~79M of the CVS-network download with rsync -z of
> > the CVS repository (assuming default gzip compression level).
>
> Yes. CVS is much denser.
>
> CVS is also total crap. So your point is?

And my entire 2.6.12-rc2 BK tree, unchecked out, is about 220MB, which
is more dense than CVS.

BK is also a lot better than CVS. So _your_ point is?

8)

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

What is the space usage behaviour when you have multiple git trees?
Do we need a git relink command in git-pasky? 8)

--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core