On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 03:47:07AM +0100, J.C. Pizarro wrote:
Show 30 quoted lines
> On 2008/2/23, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 05:51:04PM -0800, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > > Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> writes:
> > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 02:37:00AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> >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).
>
>
> Yesterday, i had git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 777 MiB )
> Today, i've git cloned git://foo.com/bar.git ( 779 MiB )
Mike Hommey <mh@glandium.org>