On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 09:58:11PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Fri, 10 Apr 2009, Robin H. Johnson wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 08, 2009 at 12:52:54AM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=exp/gentoo-x86.git;a=summary > > > > At least that's what I cloned ;-) I hope it's the right one, but it fits > > > > the description... > > > OK. FWIW, I repacked it with --window=250 --depth=250 and obtained a > > > 725MB pack file. So that's about half the originally reported size. > > The one problem with having the single large packfile is that Git > > doesn't have a trivial way to resume downloading it when the git:// > > protocol is used. > > Having multiple packs won't help the git:// protocol at all in that > regard. In fact it'll just make it a bit harder on the server for all > cases, which has to generate a single pack for streaming anyway by using > multiple source ones and perform extra work in attempting delta > compression across pack boundaries. > > > For our developers cursed with bad internet connections (a fair number > > of firewalls that don't seem to respect keepalive properly), I suppose > > I can probably just maintain a separate repo for their initial clones, > > which leaves a large overall download, but more chances to resume. > > I don't know much about git's http protocol implementation, but I guess > it should be able to resume the transfer of a pack file which might have > been interrupted in the middle? If no then this should be considered. It can. Mike -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html