On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 3:08:19 PM UTC+1, John McKown wrote: > I was thinking that the OP was saying that the three operations together > were taking a long time. I guess it would be helpful to know which of the > commands is taking so long, the "add", "commit", or the "push". If it is > the "add", I don't know a way to speed it up. That is all done locally. The > same with the "commit". The "push" might be faster to "sneaker net" as I > think you were suggesting. But that's only if the repository is being > stored somewhere that the OP can get to physically. Trying that on our > network here at work would be a "naughty! Slap hands!" situation. >
In that case, I suppose the fastest way to go abouts would be first compress the files and then send them over the wire. Since Git does exactly that as part of its design, I guess a git commit+push is quite close to the optimal transfer protocol (plus any eventual pack optimization it does locally when committing the files, duration of which would be quite negligible, I reckon). --
