On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc > repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday) > The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions. > After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune. Two hours > later, it finished. > The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for > just trunk. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl > total 1568899 > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01 > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 19008488 2007-12-05 14:01 > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx > > This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life > repacking every so often. > The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones > > I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could > use to make it smaller. > > I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may > even be usable! > > But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get > any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any > advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc. > > I already have two way sync with hg. > Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer, > or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it > again. > For now, it seems a net loss. > > --Dan > > > > git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git > > > > should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to > > Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo. > > > > P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark. > > > > Regards, > > ismail > > > > -- > > Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again. > >
To see "Re: svn trunk reaches nearly 1 GiB!!! That massive!!!" http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00805.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00770.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00769.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00768.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00767.html On 12/5/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc > repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of yesterday) > The git-svn import was done using repacks every 1000 revisions. > After it finished, I used git-gc --aggressive --prune. Two hours > later, it finished. > The final size after this is 1.5 gig for all of the history of gcc for > just trunk. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/compilerstuff/gitgcc/gccrepo/.git/objects/pack$ ls -trl > total 1568899 > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 1585972834 2007-12-05 14:01 > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.pack > -r--r--r-- 1 dberlin dberlin 19008488 2007-12-05 14:01 > pack-cd328fcf0bd673d8f2f72c42fbe67da64cbcd218.idx > > This is 3x bigger than hg *and* hg doesn't require me to waste my life > repacking every so often. > The hg operations run roughly as fast as the git ones > > I'm sure there are magic options, magic command lines, etc, i could > use to make it smaller. > > I'm sure if i spent the next few weeks fucking around with git, it may > even be usable! > > But given that git is harder to use, requires manual repacking to get > any kind of sane space usage, and is 3x bigger anyway, i don't see any > advantage to continuing to experiment with git and gcc. > > I already have two way sync with hg. > Maybe someday when git is more usable than hg to a normal developer, > or it at least is significantly smaller than hg, i'll look at it > again. > For now, it seems a net loss. > > --Dan > > > > git clone --depth 100 git://git.infradead.org/gcc.git > > > > should give around ~50mb repository with usable trunk. This is all thanks to > > Bernardo Innocenti for setting up an up-to-date gcc git repo. > > > > P.S:Please cut down on the usage of exclamation mark. > > > > Regards, > > ismail > > > > -- > > Never learn by your mistakes, if you do you may never dare to try again. > > To see "Re: svn trunk reaches nearly 1 GiB!!! That massive!!!" http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00805.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00770.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00769.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00768.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00767.html * In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00675.html , i did put The generated files from flex/bison are a lot of "trashing hexadecimals" that don't must to be commited to any cvs/svn/git/hg because it consumes a lot of diskspace for only a modification of few lines of flex/bison sources. * In http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-11/msg00683.html , i did put I hate considering temporary files as sources of the tree. They aren't sources. It's good idea to remove ALL generated files from sources: A) generated *.c, *.h from lex/bison sources *.l/*.y B) generated not-handwritten configure, makefile, aclocal.m4, config.h.in, makefile.in from the configure.ac and makefile.am sources. [the handwritten configure and makefile have to be rewritten to *.ac/*.am] C) generated binary objects *.class, *.o, *.a, *.so, ... D) generated *.c, *.h, *.cpp, *.hpp, ... from *.java E) any generated from any available source by available tool. The only exception is when the project need a bootstrapping system. See to understand http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_build_system easy! So, the cvs/svn/git/hg repositories of sources will be "small and clean" without "trashing generated files, hexadecimals, ..." This recommendation is an advantage to navigate by web to clean cvs/svn/git/hg repositories. In another case, it's an inconvenient. J.C.Pizarro
