On Aug 29, 7:55 pm, David Anderson <dander...@google.com> wrote:
> In general, checking large generated files into version control is
> frowned upon, if the data can be rebuilt from a (smaller) program. In
> this case, for example, if the data you're checking in is generated
> from a script, the best practice would be to version control the
> script, and regenerate the "heavy" data files on the client side after
> the checkout. This helps both checkout time (most people's internet
> connections have lower bandwidth than their hard drives, so generating
> the data locally is a better use of time) and your quota situation.
>
> In this case, looking through your repository, I don't see any data
> generation scripts, so I assume that the data files are provided to
> you as-is for the course or something?
Well, no... :-) We're running a small utility to generate this
stuff... the reason we check the results into SVN is that the runs
take a looong time to finish and that's the reason we absolutely don't
want to loose them.
I've been lurking on your discussion forum after I sent this request
in and I see that you've declined quota increases because the projects
weren't hosting actual code. I'll be completely honest here, we're not
doing any coding, just running this benchmark and analyzing the
results. Would you say that we shouldn't be using Google Code for
this? If so, I could very well understand that but I hope we're ok
though... we love your hosting :-) It's very student friendly ;-)
Best regards, Stefan.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Hosting at Google Code" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-code-hosting@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-code-hosting+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-code-hosting?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
