Re: [RFC] repack vs re-clone
- From
Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
- Date
- Feb 11, 2008, 18:45 UTC
- Message-ID
- <m3myq7e3ie.fsf@localhost.localdomain>
- In-Reply-To
- <e5bfff550802100025k616ccff5ib2917d283eeb0ff0@mail.gmail.com>
"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@gmail.com> writes:
Show 6 quoted lines
> Sometime I found myself re-cloning entirely a repository, as example > the Linux tree, instead of repackaging my local copy. > > The reason is that the published Linux repository is super compressed > and to reach the same level of compression on my local copy I would > need to give my laptop a long night running.
Repacking without '--force' (for gc) or '--no-reuse-delta' (low level) would always reuse this tight packing. Only with '--force' you would waste CPU trying to find better deltaification[*1*].
> So it happens to be just faster to re-clone the whole thing by upstream.
So what you are doing is passing the work, unnecessary work I'd say, to some poor server. Not nice.
[*1*] I hope that '--no-reuse-delta' means _try_ to find better delta, but use current one as possible delta, not stupid forget about current deltaification at all...
-- Jakub Narebski Poland ShadeHawk on #git