4 ms·
I'm not sure git's the best choice for handling multiple gigabytes of data. That estimate's based on their DVD releases. Oddly, I'm not positive that they're
by pronoiac 15y ago
I'm not sure git's the best choice for handling multiple gigabytes of data. That estimate's based on their DVD releases. Oddly, I'm not positive that they're compressed.
I've seen a proposal for using Usenet (or something like it) for Wikipedia; perhaps that would be appropriate here? Surfacing changes would be easier. And if you didn't want to follow each and every format available, you could. (Having every format in the same silo seems painfully redundant to me.)
- ComputerGuru 15y agoYou wouldn't place the "binary" output in the repository, just the whatever source format you're using to compile the rest. Say (for the sake of the example) LaTeX or, heck, plain UTF-8 text. Only that is stored in the git repo, the rest are generated on the fly with a continuous build system. I'm not sure how big that would be, but it's not going to be a lot. Currently, they have 38,000 titles so that's 38,000 files of, I dunno, 50,000 words on average? Probably less, as a lot of the PG works are rather short (novellas and short stories), though some are also equally monstrously long.
- aiscott 15y agoI wouldn't think that the whole of PG would be a single repository. What came to mind when I read the article was that each book would be in its own repository, and that seems to me to be well within Git's capabilities.
- pronoiac 15y agoOh, that would probably work well on the individual book level, with the right plumbing. Dealing with the quantity is another problem, but that might just require more plumbing.