On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 00:02 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 11:10 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This is an artifact, it now creates them on the fly from the git repo
> > rather than caching them. git-svn should d
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:57 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > Lots of projects use the Name format, gcc adds that to the
> > Changelog and the author is the login name, I was proposing to add
> > the Name format to the git repo to make things like gitk
> > nicer to use.
>
> There is no singula
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:57 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 10:12 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
>
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:34 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTE
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 22:04 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 8:15 PM, Harvey Harrison
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocen
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 12:30 PM, Frank Ch. Eigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > > > Hi
On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 20:01 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 3:42 PM, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 14:38 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Guys, if you want, i can populate it with my git-svn clone, which has
> > > a svn roo
d like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository. I'd also suggest Harvey
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on
> git.infradead.org.
A few things I'd like to clean up if we move a copy over
d like to request shell access to gcc.gnu.org to
> setup a git mirror of the GCC svn repository. I'd also suggest Harvey
> Harrison as a co-maintainer of the mirror, as he helped setting it up on
> git.infradead.org.
>
> At this time, the repository and git-svn metadata take
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 18:59 +0100, Bernardo Innocenti wrote:
> Daniel Berlin wrote:
> Fair enough. I hereby volunteer to setup and maintain the git
> mirror on gcc.gnu.org if someone provides me a shell account
> there.
>
Feel free to include me if you need any help. Before you move it to
gcc.
On Fri, 2007-12-14 at 09:20 +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > I'm thinking about "git clone --keep" to mark initial packs precious.
> > But 'git clone' is under rewrite to C. Let's wait until C rewrite is
> > done.
>
> It should be the default, IMHO.
>
While it doesn't mark the packs as .keep, git
On Thu, 2007-12-13 at 14:40 +, Rafael Espindola wrote:
> > Yes, everything, by default you only get the more modern branches/tags,
> > but it's all in there. If there is interest I can work with Bernardo
> > and get the rest publically exposed.
>
> I decided to give it a try, but could not fi
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 16:02 -0800, Chris Lattner wrote:
> On Dec 12, 2007, at 3:41 PM, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >> In terms of implementation, we will likely use the LTO branch as a
> >> basis. Many of the features we will need are already being
> >> implemented
On Wed, 2007-12-12 at 15:06 -0500, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Over the last few weeks we (Google) have been discussing ideas on how to
> leverage the LTO work to implement a whole program optimizer that is
> both fast and scalable.
>
> While we do not have everything thought out in detail, we think we
Some interesting stats from the highly packed gcc repo. The long chain
lengths very quickly tail off. Over 60% of the objects have a chain
length of 20 or less. If anyone wants the full list let me know. I
also have included a few other interesting points, the git default
depth of 50, my initia
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 13:04 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/6/07, Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > So the equivalent of "git gc --aggressive" - but done *properly* - is to
> > do (overnight) something like
> >
> > git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
> >
> I gave th
Wow
/usr/bin/time git repack -a -d -f --window=250 --depth=250
23266.37user 581.04system 7:41:25elapsed 86%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata
0maxresident)k
0inputs+0outputs (419835major+123275804minor)pagefaults 0swaps
-r--r--r-- 1 hharrison hharrison 29091872 2007-12-06 07:26
pack-1d46ca030c3d6d6b95ad31
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 10:52 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > git svn does accept a mailmap at import time with the same format as the
> > cvs importer I think. But for someone that just wants a repo to check
> >
> git repack -a -d --depth=250 --window=250
>
Since I have the whole gcc repo locally I'll give this a shot overnight
just to see what can be done at the extreme end or things.
Harvey
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:11 -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 12/5/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > From: "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 23:32:52 -0500
> >
> > > On 12/5/07, David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > From: "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PR
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:54 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> >
> > If anyone recalls my report was something along the lines of
> > git gc --aggressive explodes pack size.
> [ By default, for example, "git svn cl
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 20:20 -0800, David Miller wrote:
> From: "Daniel Berlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 22:47:01 -0500
>
> > The size is clearly not just svn data, it's in the git pack itself.
>
> And other users have shown much smaller metadata from a GIT import,
> and yes th
I fought with this a few months ago when I did my own clone of gcc svn.
My bad for only discussing this on #git at the time. Should have put
this to the list as well.
If anyone recalls my report was something along the lines of
git gc --aggressive explodes pack size.
git repack -a -d --depth=100
On Thu, 2007-12-06 at 00:34 +0100, Andreas Schwab wrote:
> Harvey Harrison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> &g
On Wed, 2007-12-05 at 21:23 +0100, Samuel Tardieu wrote:
> > "Daniel" == Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Daniel> So I tried a full history conversion using git-svn of the gcc
> Daniel> repository (IE every trunk revision from 1-HEAD as of
> Daniel> yesterday) The git-svn import w
On 6/7/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> The final results of a repository holding a clone of trunk:
With or without branches? (shouldn't matter that much, just
for the record)
Just trunk.
> Size of git packs:
> pack + index
On 6/4/07, David Woodhouse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 2007-06-03 at 19:57 -0700, Harvey Harrison wrote:
> If I can reproduce it I'll see if I can find some webspace.
I figured out my operator error with git gc.
The final results of a repository holding a clone of trunk
On 6/3/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
>> I get about 1.4 GB for the pack with the default
>> depth and window parameters.
I forgot to mention that I obtained an ~800MB repository
with git 1.5.0.x after increasing the window size to 2
On 6/3/07, Gabriel Paubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well, actually the GCC repository does not pack better
here than yours. It's even worse after having tested
on 3 different machines just in case. In all cases
I get about 1.4 GB for the pack with the default
depth and window parameters.
The
Whoops, trimmed CC:
On 5/31/07, Bernardo Innocenti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Harvey Harrison wrote:
> Are you sure it packs to 877MB? Oh, are you including a checked out
> gcc source tree in that total?
No, I only computed the .git size.
OK, just seemed like my size with work
Are you sure it packs to 877MB? Oh, are you including a checked out
gcc source tree in that total?
In my gcc-svn clone of trunk:
~/dev/trunk$ du -s
873200
~/dev/trunk$ du .git -s
423064
This is a fully packed repo with default packing settings. (git gc)
Cheers,
Harvey Harrison
On 5/8/07, Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And today we learn why I think version control systems that think
"repacking" is something the user should be doing are worthless beasts
:)
It generally just means you didn't think through your storage
subsystem enough, but in git's case it's pr
git-svnimport will not pack incrementally as it runs, so it might get
pretty large. git-svn offers and incremental repack every x commits
(I chose 1000) and that did wonders for the import time for me.
Otherwise it will create a huge number of files before the final pack.
Cheers,
Harvey
On 5/8
a point, my git-svn clone of trunk comes in at 414MB,
excluding the size of checked out files. I'm assuming the public svn
is the complete history.
Cheers,
Harvey Harrison
34 matches
Mail list logo
