Re: Git vs Monotone

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 08:33:17PM +0200, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:

Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

quoted

If I clone the git mirror of our monotone repository, I find a
checkout size of 148 MB after git-repack--running git-gc also
increased the size by 2 MB, but I'll stick with the initial checkout
size for fairness. If I multiply this by my 11 checkouts, I will have
1628 MB. This is even more compelling for me, as I now save 728 MB of
disk space with monotone."

You have at least two options to reduce diskspace:
a. Clone once from remote, then clone from that clone, it should
   hardlink the larger packfiles to the initial clone and therefore not
   cost you a lot.
b. Clone once from remote, and create 11 branches inside the new cloned
   repo.  Switch branches while doing development.

Most git users pick b.  It's easier to work with.  Having 11 unpacked
repos means that all the object files in those trees are almost up to
date, but it adds to the complexity of comparing changes and merging
changes between branches.  The compilation speed can be increased with
ccache if need be.

c. Still clone from the remote, but set up alternates to a single
local "reference repository". Then all common objects will be stored
only once in this reference repository. The advantage to (a) is that
your remotes are actually set up sensibly.

(Note that the blog post talks about .git + checkout sizes, in case
someone got confused like I did, counting only .git. :-)

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
As in certain cults it is possible to kill a process if you know
its true name.  -- Ken Thompson and Dennis M. Ritchie