Re: Local clones aka forks disk size optimization
- From
Sitaram Chamarty <sitaramc@gmail.com>
- Date
- Nov 18, 2012, 10:42 UTC
- Message-ID
- <CAMK1S_hCk3QdDn8XnXVisL1i2V0iPCZBYN989JmZ3JYr7ckRrA@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <ccb8680a-97ad-4cf8-95d0-5e21f60494f4@zcs>
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Enrico Weigelt <enrico.weigelt@vnc.biz> wrote:
Show 8 quoted lines
> >> Provide one "main" clone which is bare, pulls automatically, and is >> there to stay (no pruning), so that all others can use that as a >> reliable alternates source. > > The problem here, IMHO, is the assumption, that the main repo will > never be cleaned up. But what to do if you dont wanna let it grow > forever ?
That's not the only problem. I believe you only get the savings when the main repo gets the commits first. Which is probably ok most of the time but it's worth mentioning.
> > hmm, distributed GC is a tricky problem.
Except for one little issue (see other thread, subject line "cloning a namespace downloads all the objects"), namespaces appear to do everything we want in terms of the typical use cases for alternates, and/or 'git clone -l', at least on the server side.