Re: [RFC] Zit: the git-based single file content tracker

> I was slowly writing a reply but it seems David beat me to it, so here
> goes a couple of additional comments.
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 9:11 PM,  <david@lang.hm> wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>>> Running "git init" in an empty directory consumes about 100k of diskspace
>>> on the machine I am typing this on, and you should be able to share most
>>> of them (except one 41-byte file that is the branch tip ref) when you
>>> track many files inside a single directory by using a single repository,
>>> one branch per file (or "one set of branches per file") model.
>>
>> the reason to use seperate repos is to ease the work involved if you need to
>> move that file (and it's repo) elsewhere.
>
> Precisely. The one-repo-per-file is just the simplest and most
> flexible solution. But yes, I have to admit I hadn't looked into disk
> usage, and indeed we should try and squeeze this as much as possible.
>
>> with the git directory being under .zit, would it be possible to link the
>> things that are nessasary togeather?
>
> I'm not sure about _which_ files could be shared.
>
>> hmm, looking at this in more detail.
>>
>> about 44K of diskspace is used by the .sample hook files, so those can be
>> removed
>
> Exactly. I'm setting up zit to prepare its repos to a more compact
> form, and getting rid of hooks and description is the first step.
>
>> the remaining 56K is mostly directories eating up a disk block
>>
>> find . -ls
>> 200367    4 drwxr-xr-x   7 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00 .
>> 200368    4 drwxr-xr-x   4 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00 ./refs
>> 200369    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./refs/heads
>> 200370    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./refs/tags
>> 200371    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./branches
>> 200372    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00 ./hooks
>> 200373    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00 ./info
>> 1798469   4 -rw-r--r--   1 dlang    users         240 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./info/exclude
>> 1600716   4 -rw-r--r--   1 dlang    users          58 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./description
>> 200374    4 drwxr-xr-x   4 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00 ./objects
>> 200375    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./objects/pack
>> 200376    4 drwxr-xr-x   2 dlang    users        4096 Oct 24 12:00
>> ./objects/info
>> 1600717   4 -rw-r--r--   1 dlang    users          23 Oct 24 12:00 ./HEAD
>> 1600719   4 -rw-r--r--   1 dlang    users          92 Oct 24 12:00 ./config
>>
>> how many of these are _really_ nessasary?
>
> For starters, I'm wondering if setting core.preferSymlinkRefs would be
> useful here. Does it break sometihng?
>
>> tags, info, hooks, branches, and description could probably be skipped for
>> the common zit case, as long as they can be created as needed.
>
> It seems that tags, hooks, branches and description can be done with.