On Wed, 18 Dec 2019, Jason Merrill wrote: > On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 4:39 PM Joseph Myers <jos...@codesourcery.com> > wrote: > > > Points for consideration: > > > > 1. Do we want some kind of rearrangement of refs as in the 1b > > repository or not? > > > > Maybe? How much space does that save in a clone? How much work does a > partial clone add on the server, since the server needs to pack up the > objects for the partial clone rather than just transmitting its own packs?
I haven't measured work on the server, and timing individual clones is liable to a lot of variation from variable load there, but for a single clone --mirror of the 1b repository (so all refs, including refs/deleted/) I got real 13m16.473s user 16m45.429s sys 0m33.901s and 1360 MB objects directory, but for a clone without --mirror (so only a limited subset of refs and the server needing to build a pack) real 15m5.554s user 12m11.771s sys 0m26.914s and 950 MB objects directory. Adding the objects from the existing git-svn mirror (presumably also under refs not fetched by default) increases repository size by about 300 MB, based on a previous test of doing that (most blob and tree objects will be shared between the two versions of the history, but all the commit objects are separate). > > 3. Where an attribution comes from an author map rather than a > > ChangeLog file, do we wish to use the existing author map or do people > > prefer using names from that map but with @gcc.gnu.org addresses (and > > @gnu.org for usernames that only committed in the gcc2 period)? > > I lean toward the latter. I'll plan to change the author map to default to @gcc.gnu.org and @gnu.org addresses. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
