Re: Unresolved issues #2 (shallow clone again)

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: May 7, 2006, 06:08 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90605062308x53995076k7bf45f0aebcae0c6@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vbqubvdbr.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On 5/6/06, Junio C Hamano <junkio@cox.net> wrote:

Show 10 quoted lines

> "Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > It means that for a merge or checkout involving stuff we "don't have",
> > it's trivial to know we are missing, and so we can  attempt a fetch of
> > the missing objects or tell the user how to request them them before
> > retrying.
> >
> > And in any case commits and trees are lightweight and compress well...
>
> Commit maybe, but is this based on a hard fact?

No hard facts here :( but I think it's reasonable to assume that the trees delta/compress reasonably well, as a given commit will change just a few entries in each tree.

I might try and hack a shallow local clone of the kernel and pack it tightly to see what it yields.

cheers,

martin