On 6/7/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> The final results of a repository holding a clone of trunk:
With or without branches? (shouldn't matter that much, just
for the record)
Just trunk.
> Size of git packs:
> pack + index - 286344kB
> git svn met
Harvey Harrison wrote:
The final results of a repository holding a clone of trunk:
With or without branches? (shouldn't matter that much, just
for the record)
Size of git packs:
pack + index - 286344kB
git svn metadata - nearly 13MB, allows incremental updates as more
commits made in svn.
On 6/4/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
I figured out my operator error with git gc.
The final results of a repository holding a clone of trunk:
Size of git p
Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
Come visit git.infradead.org and its GCC development fork.
*cough* No reason to fork. At least I'm just too used to GIT these
days and like it quite a lot, that's why I work on getting the
toolchain repos converted (and kept up-to-date!) somewhere as GIT
repos.
Err.
On Mon, 2007-06-04 05:17:17 -0400, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> > > If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
> >
> > If you mail me a SSH public key you can also put it on
>
David Woodhouse wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
If you mail me a SSH public key you can also put it on
git.infradead.org.
Come visit git.infradead.org and its GCC development fork.
--
// Bernardo
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
If you mail me a SSH public key you can also put it on
git.infradead.org.
--
dwmw2
On 6/3/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
>> I get about 1.4 GB for the pack with the default
>> depth and window parameters.
I forgot to mention that I obtained an ~800MB repository
with git 1.5.0.x after increasing the window size to 20.
Now I don't
Harvey Harrison wrote:
I get about 1.4 GB for the pack with the default
depth and window parameters.
I forgot to mention that I obtained an ~800MB repository
with git 1.5.0.x after increasing the window size to 20.
The defaults changed significantly somewhere near version 1.5.1 I
believe w
On 6/3/07, Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, actually the GCC repository does not pack better
here than yours. It's even worse after having tested
on 3 different machines just in case. In all cases
I get about 1.4 GB for the pack with the default
depth and window parameters.
The
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:57:36AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> >>Gabriel Paubert wrote:
> >>
> >>>I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
> >>>with git-gc --aggressive. It
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2007 at 11:00:29AM -0400, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
I just upgraded my git to 1.5.2 and repacked the git repository
with git-gc --aggressive. It is quite impressive: the size of
the pack file was almost cut in half, from ~23MB to ~
Gabriel Paubert wrote:
This may be the pack depth which was increased to 50 according
to 1.5.2 release notes:
I've repacked with 1.5.2, and it doesn't seem to decrease
the repo size considerably.
I'm now repacking with "git-repack -a -d -f --window=20 --depth=100",
but it takes a lot of time
Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> BTW, there is a strange line in the current ChangeLog, between May 30th
> and May 31st entries: ">>> .r125234". Is it just me, a subversion
> glitch or something else?
It's a leftover conflict marker, I have removed it.
Andreas.
--
Andreas Schw
14 matches
Mail list logo
