On Wed, Dec 02, 2009 at 12:18:30AM +0300, Dmitry Potapov wrote:
> AFAIK, "git archive" is cheaper than git clone. I do not say it is fast
> for huge project, but if you want to run a process such as clean build
> and test that takes a long time anyway, it does not add much to the
> total time.
If you want to keep a separate copy of your source tree in order to get
consistent builds, "git archive" is not much cheaper in disk space or in
time, at least on this unix system:
$ find orig -exec md5sum {} + > /dev/null 2>&1 # ensure hot cache
$ time git clone orig temp-clone
Initialized empty Git repository in
/usr/local/jepler/src/temp-clone/.git/
0.6 real 0.3 user 0.6 system
$ time (GIT_DIR=orig/.git git archive --format tar --prefix temp-archive/ HEAD | tar xf -)
0.5 real 0.2 user 0.5 system
$ du -s orig temp-clone temp-archive
41880 orig
14640 temp-clone # du excludes files already accounted for by 'orig'
14304 temp-archive
.. and the next run to bring temp-clone up to date can be even faster,
since it's just 'git pull' and will only touch changed files.
Jeff
--
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