Re: why is my repo size ten times bigger than what I expected?

From: Tor Arvid Lund <torarvid@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 9, 2011, 21:06 UTC
Message-ID: <AANLkTimYE8qCz98u3r2HRmeCx7k0wd_cWp-tR+tSoKbD@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikxPPo4pGqrvo4rdDUOwp1PYYEdcERVfXfLnsVh@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Ruben Laguna <ruben.laguna@gmail.com> wrote:

Show 23 quoted lines

>> I just thought I'd mention that the git-remove-history script that you
>> mention does filter-branch on HEAD, and not using the --all parameter.
>> I thought --all was the best way to "catch all" branches in one go...
>>
>>    -- Tor Arvid
>>
>
> Much faster this way, thanks Tor,
>
> But it still gives the same result 88MB
>
>
> $ git branch -a
> * develop
>  master
>  remotes/origin/HEAD -> origin/develop
>  remotes/origin/develop
>  remotes/origin/experimental
>  remotes/origin/gh-pages
>  remotes/origin/master
>
> Finally I have deleted my public repo on github, created a new one and
> pushed master and develop to the new empty one.

Ah, that's why I got only 3.6M when i cloned just now ;)

FWIW (if you still want to figure it out...) - Whatever refs that your origin branches point to - their history and objects will *not* get deleted by git gc/prune/whatever. So if they point to commits which have these big jars in the history, that may be the cause. Also, when I do filter-branch, it saves the old refs in .git/refs/original so that I can revert it all those times when I screw it up ;)

Basically - since your "new" repo is so small, there is something in your original repo that refers to your large objects.

Have a good night.

    -- Tor Arvid