4 ms·
You would be surprised. Git's differential compression is pretty impressive. I worked at an SVN show where HEAD was about 270mb but when I cloned it in Git the
by lucisferre 14y ago
You would be surprised. Git's differential compression is pretty impressive. I worked at an SVN show where HEAD was about 270mb but when I cloned it in Git the bare repo was only 130mb. Git also let's you clone parts of the tree and sections of the history (at least when working with SVN it did).
- plorkyeran 14y agoThat's mostly a SVN problem; checkouts are exceptionally large due to that they have a lot of metadata and a second copy of each file for local diffing/etc. which are uncompressed. Perforce doesn't do the same thing.
- to3m 14y agoYou may be right. My suspicion would be that a lot of the data is not terribly compressible, and that you'd be looking at over 1TB for the repository of a decent-size project. Add one checkout of head on top; add build products to that. Build products mount up surprisingly quickly, with multiple gigabytes of objects and PDBs being common. 1+TB (and git doesn't support partial checkouts) would make it difficult for people to work off a laptop, or use a SSD. Everybody would need 2 2TB drives on the off chance that they might have to work on more than one project at once. Or you'd have to check less stuff into the git repository. I know people say disk space is cheap; I just don't think it's quite cheap enough yet to piss away to this degree. It's one thing to have a server with masses of storage, I'm just not convinced you can require every client PC to have the same. I could be wrong.