On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Thijs Alkemade <m...@thijsalkema.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 06:57:58PM +0100, Thijs Alkemade wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:23:41PM -0500, Jon Chambers wrote: > > > I'm not asserting that other systems don't have helpful features, but > > > I think Github's pull requests are a really nice tool. They make it > > > easy for outside developers to submit patches and do a really nice job > > > of facilitating conversations about code changes. > > > > > > I recognize that changing version control systems and service > > > providers and workflows are all Really Big Deals in their own right, > > > and doing all of those at once is an Even Bigger Deal, but I (as an > > > outside developer) do think it's a thing worth considering. > > > > > > -Jon > > > > > > > We have an automatically synchronized Bitbucket mirror. Why do you prefer > > Github's pull requests over Bitbucket's? > > > > I'm not against also running a Github mirror, there are tools that should > > allow lossless conversion between the two. However, last time I tried > those > > (https://github.com/xnyhps/adium), the repository went from ~700 MB to > > 2.5GB. Anyone who would want to use Github to quickly send a pull > request to > > Adium would probably give up trying to clone that. I could have a look at > > what causes that enormous increase in size, but unless we decide to drop > > a lot of history and create a new repository without binary frameworks it > > will still end up quite large. > > > > Thijs > > Okay, I took a closer look. > > * In the repository that ran the conversion, the .hg/git directory is > 909MB. > This is a fresh conversion, but might have included a couple of local > commits I never pushed. > It was a fresh conversion, as after I tried `git gc`, hg-git was unable > to > push to github. I guess it accidentally deleted something git considers > garbage but hg-git doesn't. > * https://github.com/settings/repositories shows it as: > xnyhps/adium 2681.82MB > * Cloning that resulted in a 648 MB directory (so working directory > and .git). > * `git gc --aggressive` brought that down to 386 MB. > > I don't really know what's going on with the size Github shows. I'd guess > they run `git gc` at least once in a while. I'll try deleting the > repository, and pushing a clone that was gc'ed locally first instead. > You may want to run the repack with the appropriate options instead of gc --aggressive: http://metalinguist.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/the-woes-of-git-gc-aggressive-and-how-git-deltas-work/ Since this is a one-time operation, you should run the repack with the -f. I've played with this on repositories converted from SVN, and I found that repack tends to do better than gc --aggressive in terms of repository size. > > Thijs >
