On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 11:27:33AM +0200, Andreas Ericsson wrote: > Dmitry Potapov wrote: > >OTOH, if you want to have a clean repository immediately, I believe > >'git clone' is a better option. After you made a local clone using > >it, 'git gc' should remove old garbage. > > > > A clone only fetches revs reachable from a ref, so pruning immediately > after a clone is completely pointless. Not true. git-clone copies the whole pack, so it can contain unreachable objects. Here is a simple script that demonstrates that without garbage collection the size of the cloned repository will be the same as the original one. =========================================== # Make a small repo mkdir test cd test git init echo hi > there git add there git commit -m 'Small repo' # Add a random 10M binary file dd if=/dev/urandom of=testme.txt count=10 bs=1M git add testme.txt git commit -m 'Add big binary file' # Remove the 10M binary file git rm testme.txt git commit -m 'Remove big binary file' # Compress the repo, see how big the repo is git gc --aggressive --prune du -ks . # 10348 du -ks .git # 10344 git-whatchanged # Try to rewrite history to remove the binary file git-filter-branch --tree-filter 'rm -f testme.txt' HEAD git reset --hard # Remove original refs rm .git/refs/original/refs/heads/master # Remove back cd .. # Clone repository git-clone -l test/.git test2 cd test2 du -ks .git # 10360 # Now run garbage collection git gc du -ks .git # 96 =========================================== Dmitry - 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
