On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> >
> > I wasn't suggesting to use CVS. I meant that for a newly developed SCM,
> > the CVS/SCCS format as storage may be more appealing than the current
> > git format.
>
> Go wil
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Russell King wrote:
>
> And my entire 2.6.12-rc2 BK tree, unchecked out, is about 220MB, which
> is more dense than CVS.
>
> BK is also a lot better than CVS. So _your_ point is?
Hey, anybody who wants to argue that BK is getter than GIT won't be
getting any counter-argu
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:10:27PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Go wild. I did mine in six days, and you've been whining about other
> peoples SCM's for three years.
Even if I spend 6 days doing git, you'd never have thrown away BK in
exchange for git.
> In other words - go and _do_ something
On Wed, Apr 13, 2005 at 10:30:52AM +0100, Russell King wrote:
> And my entire 2.6.12-rc2 BK tree, unchecked out, is about 220MB, which
> is more dense than CVS.
Yep, this is why I mentioned SCCS format too, I didn't know it was even
smaller, but I expected a similar density from SCCS.
> Note: I'm
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > At the rate of 9M for every 198 changeset checkins, that means I'll have
> > to download 2.7G _uncompressible_ (i.e. already compressed with a bad
> > per-file ratio due the too-small
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> I wasn't suggesting to use CVS. I meant that for a newly developed SCM,
> the CVS/SCCS format as storage may be more appealing than the current
> git format.
Go wild. I did mine in six days, and you've been whining about other
peoples SCM's for
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 04:45:07PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Yes. CVS is much denser.
>
> CVS is also total crap. So your point is?
I wasn't suggesting to use CVS. I meant that for a newly developed SCM,
the CVS/SCCS format as storage may be more appealing than the current
git format. I guess
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:21:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> The full .git archive for 199 versions of the kernel (the 2.6.12-rc2 one
> and a test-run of 198 patches from Andrew) is 111MB. In other words,
> adding 198 "full" new kernels only grew the archive by 9MB (that's all
> "actual disk u
Hi David,
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:36:23PM -0400, David Eger wrote:
> > No. A tree is not the full data. A tree contains enough information
> > to
> > _recreate_ the full data, but the tree itself just tells you _how_
> > to do
> > that. It doesn't contain very much of the data itself at all.
On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> At the rate of 9M for every 198 changeset checkins, that means I'll have
> to download 2.7G _uncompressible_ (i.e. already compressed with a bad
> per-file ratio due the too-small files) for a whole pack including all
> changesets without accounti
On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 02:21:58PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> Yes. A tree is defined by the blobs it references (and the subtrees) but
> it doesn't _contain_ them. It just contains a pointer to them.
A pointer to them? You mean a SHA1 hash of them? or what?
Where is the *real* data stored
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005, David Eger wrote:
>
> The reason I am questioning this point is the GIT README file.
>
> Linus makes explicit that a "blob" is just the "file contents," and that
> really, a "blob" is not just the SHA1 of the "blob":
>
> > In particular, the "current directory cache" certa
The reason I am questioning this point is the GIT README file.
Linus makes explicit that a "blob" is just the "file contents," and that
really, a "blob" is not just the SHA1 of the "blob":
> In particular, the "current directory cache" certainly does not need to
> be consistent with the current
Dear diary, on Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 06:05:19AM CEST, I got a letter
where David Eger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> So with git, *every* changeset is an entire (compressed) copy of the
> kernel. Really? Every patch you accept adds 37 MB to your hard disk?
>
> Am I missing something here?
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 05:49:31PM CEST, I got a letter
where "Randy.Dunlap" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 16:38:00 -0700 (PDT) Linus Torvalds wrote:
..snip..
> | Yes. Crappy old tree, but it can still read my git.git directory, so you
> | can use it to upda
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 01:14:57AM CEST, I got a letter
where Paul Jackson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> Useful explanation - thanks, Linus.
>
> Is this picture and description accurate:
>
> ==
>
>
> <
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 08:42:53PM CEST, I got a letter
where Christopher Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> I totally agree that odds is really really small.
> That is why it is not worthy to handle the case. People hit that
> can just add a new line or some thing to avoid it, if
Dear diary, on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 12:07:37AM CEST, I got a letter
where "Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
..snip..
> >Hey, I may end up being wrong, and yes, maybe I should have done a
> >two-level one. The good news is that we can trivially fix it later (even
> >dynamically - we
On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:41:53AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:53:40AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Christopher Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 12:51:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > >
> > > But I am wondering what your
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 11:28:54AM CEST, I got a letter
where Junio C Hamano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> > "CL" == Christopher Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> CL> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 12:51:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >>
> >> But I am wondering what your pl
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 07:53:40AM CEST, I got a letter
where Christopher Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 12:51:59AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> >
> > But I am wondering what your plans are to handle renames---or
> > does git already represent them?
Dear diary, on Sun, Apr 10, 2005 at 01:31:10AM CEST, I got a letter
where Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> told me that...
> On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >
> > Actually, I guess I wouldn't have to change the format. I could just
> > extend the existing "tree" object to be able to
22 matches
Mail list logo
