On 17 February 2010 23:23, Oswald Buddenhagen <o...@kde.org> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 04:50:52PM -0600, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> Enhancing git to support narrow clones and keeping everything in one >> repository lets individual contributors decide which part(s) of the >> tree are important to them, while allowing atomic cross-module commits >> (since they are all in the same repository) and trivial >> copy/move-with-history (no special subtree merge required). >> > that's nice in theory ... in practice, a repo with the size of KDE/ > would be just plain incredibly slow to work with. in git, status and > commit operate globally. imagine the equivalent of "svn st KDE/" each > time you want to commit something. less obviously, this also has a > tremendous effect on the speed of rebasing and other more advanced > operations. just compare qtcreator and qt - just to name one "fairly > big" and one "pretty huge" git repo.
Agreed. I think having kdelibs in one git repository, kdebase in another etc, is acceptable. It doesn't need to be split up any more than that. I use git-svn with the whole of kdebase. git status takes a while the first time you run it, from cold. And I have a very slow laptop. Specifically: $ time git status real 0m14.884s $ time git status real 0m0.269s So after the very first time you do it, for the rest of the time everything else is pretty much immediately. John _______________________________________________ Kde-scm-interest mailing list Kde-scm-interest@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-scm-interest
