On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM, rusi <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 4:14 am, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:16 AM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: >> > The advantage of DVCS is that everybody has a full copy of the repo. >> > The disadvantage of the DVCS is that every MUST have a full copy of the >> > repo. When a repo gets big, you may not want to pull all of that data >> > just to get the subtree you need. >> >> Yeah, and depending on size, that can be a major problem. While git >> _will_ let you make a shallow clone, it won't let you push from that, >> so it's good only for read-only repositories (we use git to manage >> software deployments at work - shallow clones are perfect) or for >> working with patch files. >> >> Hmm. ~/cpython/.hg is 200MB+, but ~/pike/.git is only 86MB. Does >> Mercurial compress its content? A tar.gz of each comes down, but only >> to ~170MB and ~75MB respectively, so I'm guessing the bulk of it is >> already compressed. But 200MB for cpython seems like a lot. > > [I am assuming that you have run "git gc --aggressive" before giving > those figures]
They're both clones done for the purpose of building, so I hadn't run any sort of garbage collect. > Your data would tell me that python is about twice as large a project > as pike in terms of number of commits. Isn't this a natural conclusion? I didn't think there would be that much difference, tbh. Mainly, I'm just seeing cpython as not being 200MB of history, or so I'd thought. Pike has ~30K commits (based on 'git log --oneline|wc -l'); CPython has roughly 80K (based on 'hg log|grep changeset|wc -l' - there's likely an easier way but I don't know Mercurial). So yeah, okay, it's been doing more. But I still don't see 200MB in that. Seems a lot of content. ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
