Al Viro [off-list ref] writes:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted
quoted
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
of separate working directories
Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
git clone -l -s
is not particulary slow...
How big is a checkout of a single revision of kernel these days,
compared to a well-packed history since v2.6.12-rc2?
The cost of writing out the work tree files isn't ignorable and
probably more than writing out the repository data (which -s
saves for you).
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Al Viro [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted
quoted
do you tend to clone the entire repository repeatedly into a series
of separate working directories
Too time consuming on consumer drives with projects the size of Linux.
git clone -l -s
is not particulary slow...
How big is a checkout of a single revision of kernel these days,
compared to a well-packed history since v2.6.12-rc2?
The cost of writing out the work tree files isn't ignorable and
probably more than writing out the repository data (which -s
saves for you).
Depends... I'm using ext2 for that and noatime everywhere, so that might
change the picture, but IME it's fast enough... As for the size, it gets
to ~320Mb on disk, which is comparable to the pack size (~240-odd Mb).