Re: [RFC] repack vs re-clone

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

 



"Marco Costalba" <mcostalba@xxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Sometime I found myself re-cloning entirely a repository, as example
> the Linux tree, instead of repackaging my local copy.
> 
> The reason is that the published Linux repository is super compressed
> and to reach the same level of compression on my local copy I would
> need to give my laptop a long night running.

Repacking without '--force' (for gc) or '--no-reuse-delta' (low level)
would always reuse this tight packing. Only with '--force' you would
waste CPU trying to find better deltaification[*1*].
 
> So it happens to be just faster to re-clone the whole thing by upstream.

So what you are doing is passing the work, unnecessary work I'd say,
to some poor server. Not nice.


[*1*] I hope that '--no-reuse-delta' means _try_ to find better delta,
but use current one as possible delta, not stupid forget about current
deltaification at all...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
ShadeHawk on #git
-
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]

  Powered by Linux