On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Sean Farley <sean.michael.farley at gmail.com > wrote:
> Well ? did you try this with the equivalent mercurial feature: > largefiles? > Nope, feel free. Most of the speedup is independent of the large files (which only change the git repo size from 78MB to 50MB). > Which version of mercurial is this? > 2.4.2 > Also, what files did > you deem were "fat" > A smattering of powerpoint slides, pdfs, random binaries, and a few very large log files. Note that this was a performance experiment and don't care about which files. In practice, I'd suggest managing fewer (or even none). https://bitbucket.org/jedbrown/petsc-git-lean/src/70e3b17f35e0e8b32ab8f81ba0df412adfccadbd/.gitattributes?at=master > (horrible name, by the way)? > Heh, well, I wanted to name it "blaze", but decided to use a name that wasn't taken. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/petsc-dev/attachments/20130121/1bc5dca3/attachment.html>