Re: Local clones aka forks disk size optimization

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 11:34 PM, Enrico Weigelt <enrico.weigelt@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> 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.
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]