4 ms·
I don't think I've ever seen a situation where that's true. And I've converted a lot of repositories (I maintain the svn2git project). SVN has its metafiles,
by nirvdrum 15y ago
I don't think I've ever seen a situation where that's true. And I've converted a lot of repositories (I maintain the svn2git project). SVN has its metafiles, but git has the full history locally. In all but the most trivially-sized projects, the git clone is bound to be larger. For larger projects it can be several orders of magnitude larger.
- rimantas 15y agoGit also has much more efficient storage mechanism.
- nirvdrum 15y agoI'm aware of that and didn't imply otherwise. But the storage mechanism is for the history, not for the materialized files in the working directory. That's going to be the same for either git or SVN, since they're checked out. So you're talking about comparing git's history DB to SVN's metadata files. The metadata files are effectively constant cost whereas the git history grows with each checkin. They get quite large.
- fanf2 15y agoI have here a svn checkout of the FreeBSD HEAD branch, using 1550 MB disk in 199443 files. I also have a git checkout of the same thing, which includes the history of the HEAD but not the other branches. It is 1234 MB in 54823 files.