On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 05:21:53PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote: >On Thu, 2018-05-03 at 22:10 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote: >> The outputs from this run >> were a surprising amount bigger than my first test repo, as the >> following bare clones from each will show: >> >> tack:/tmp$ du -s test* >> 613888 test1-bare.git >> 3653432 test2-bare.git >> 714336 test2-manual-bare.git >> >> I've not worked out why yet. > >Was this with a completely different tool or the same tool with >different settings/wrappers?
Different tools. >If it was a different tool maybe a `git gc --aggressive` will repack >(and thus compact/delta-compress) the bigger one? (my hypothesis is >that maybe the first run did it automatically and the second didn't) ACK, that was my initial thought. The first tool does a "git gc" after each revision has been converted. The second one doesn't. But I did "git gc" and "git repack -a -d" on the second afterwards. It reduced from ~3.8G to the ~3.5G you see here. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Welcome my son, welcome to the machine.