Re: Fwd: Git and Large Binaries: A Proposed Solution

From: Eric Montellese <emontellese@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 26, 2011, 16:23 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTim8h7RGk59b7jsKjBEdEKaC77S7Nm2NYAE5R3i2@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimE+s81Xbj4snNX0WWxG8x=qSwaQWfK+08+1Zy+@mail.gmail.com>

Good stuff!

So, it seems like there are at least a few decent ways to work around the git binaries problem -- but my question is, will something like this become part of mainline git? (and how is such a decision made and by whom?)

It does seem that there is a real need for a solution like this, and a lot of the core code to handle it has already been written (perhaps even by multiple folks); it's just in need (as Peff said) of a polished and configurable script. If one were to exist, would it become part of mainline git?

Thanks, Eric

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Scott Chacon <schacon@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 31 quoted lines

> Hey,
>
> Sorry to come in a bit late to this, but in addition to git-annex, I
> wrote something called 'git-media' a long time ago that works in a
> similar manner to what you both are discussing.
>
> Much like what peff was talking about, it uses the smudge and clean
> filters to automatically redirect content into a .git/media directory
> instead of into Git itself while keeping the SHA in Git.  One of the
> cool thing is that it can use S3, scp or a local directory to transfer
> the big files to and from.
>
> Check it out if interested:
>
> https://github.com/schacon/git-media
>
> On Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 6:14 AM, Pete Wyckoff <pw@padd.com> wrote:
>> peff@peff.net wrote on Fri, 21 Jan 2011 17:24 -0500:
>>
>> Just a quick aside.  Since (a2b665d, 2011-01-05) you can provide
>> the filename as an argument to the filter script:
>>
>>    git config --global filter.huge.clean huge-clean %f
>>
>
> This is amazing.  I absolutely did not know you could do this, and it
> would make parts of git-media way better if I re-implemented it using
> this.  Thanks for pointing this out.
>
> Scott
>