On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 4:09 PM, <fossil-users-requ...@lists.fossil-scm.org> wrote: > > Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2017 16:08:20 -0500 > From: Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> > > The overhead for a small batch of commits non-zero but it is > manageable. A full clone, on the other hand, is too expensive. To > give Fossil the ability to service clone requests from git or hg > clients, it would be necessary to implement some kind of cache wherein > all of the artifacts have been pre-translated. That means that the > storage space requirements on the server would be multiplied by 2 or 3 > (depending on whether your wanted to service just git or just hg or > both). >
I assumed a full clone would be far too much. Thus why I was thinking that non-Fossil VCS clients would be served via shadow repositories, despite doubling (or more) the repository storage needs. If a project were so big that the storage requirements became an issue, then maybe make the shadow repositories be shallow and/or narrow. (If I'm correctly understanding how git implements branches, it would be possible to keep the git shadow shallow by periodically deleting old branch labels/tags (which would allow the referenced commits to be garbage collected (if not otherwise referenced by other means).)
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
