On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy wrote:
> It's not an all-win situation though. --bulk is slower than --no-bulk
> because:
>
> - Triple hashing: we need to calculate both object SHA-1s _and_ pack
>SHA-1. At the end we have to fix up the pack, which means rehashing
>the
On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Matthieu Moy
wrote:
> Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
>
>> except that it does not deltifies nor sort objects.
>
> I think this should be mentionned in the doc. Otherwise, it seems like
> "git add --bulk" is like "git add && git repack".
Yep. Will do.
> BTW, will th
Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy writes:
> except that it does not deltifies nor sort objects.
I think this should be mentionned in the doc. Otherwise, it seems like
"git add --bulk" is like "git add && git repack".
BTW, will the next "git gc" be efficient after a "add --bulk"? I mean:
will it consider the
The use case is
tar -xzf bigproject.tar.gz
cd bigproject
git init
git add .
# git grep or something
The first add will generate a bunch of loose objects. With --bulk, all
of them are forced into a single pack instead, less clutter on disk
and maybe faster object access.
On gd
4 matches
Mail list logo
