On 9/4/07, Jon Smirl <jonsmirl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes. For performance reasons, since a simple commit would kill you in any > > reasonably sized repo. > > That's not an obvious conclusion. A new commit is just a series of Hi Jon! If you search the archives you'll find Linus explaining that the initial git had all the directory structure in one single "tree" object that held all the paths, not matter how deep. The problem with that was taht every commit generated a huge new tree object, so he switched to the current "nested trees" structure, which also has the nice feature of speeding up diffs/merges if whole subtrees haven't changed. > edits to the previous commit. Start with the previous commit, edit it, > delta it and store it. Storing of the file objects is the same. Why > isn't this scheme fast than the current one? I think you're a bit confused between 2 different things: - git is _snapshot_ based, so every commit-tree-blob set is completely independent. The "canonical" storage is each of those gzipped in .git/objects - however, for performance and on-disk-footprint, we delta them (very efficiently I hear) So if you ask the GIT APIs about a tree, you end up dealing with the nested trees I describe. Similarly, if you ask for a blob, you get the blob. But internally git _is_ delta-compressing them. It's not compressing them immediately -- only when you run git gc. But from an API perspective, you don't have to worry about that. HTH martin - 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
