On Jan 6, 2008 8:31 PM, Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Ramsey send to me a dump of our svn repository. The uncompressed dump > size > is 2.76 Gb > > After removing UDig except the required depencies (the GML module has its > history in UDig), the dump size is 1.59 Gb. > > After removing a few (not yet all) of the huge test files and every JAR files, > the dump size is 1.43 Gb. More test files will be removed later - I'm really > just starting the cleaning. > > Belows are the biggest files ever commited to our SVN history. I means > commited > with "svn add", not "svn copy" (otherwise the size in svndump is close to 0). > I > just pasted the first few files, but there is 73 files bigger than 1 Mb and > 406 > files bigger than 100 kb. As you can see from this extract, we failed at least > partially to get peoples to use "svn copy" - the same files are added again > and > again. When we switched from CVS to SVN, we said very loud to not use > graphical > SVN interfaces (no TortoiseSVN, no EclipseSVN - command line only) as they > were > not good at that time. Apparently we failed to convince peoples. Hopefully > those > graphical interfaces are better now, but please check with "svn status" from > the > command line everytime you do some SVN operation that you never did before. > > > Size Filename > -------- > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > 55474027 > geotools/trunk/gt/plugin/geotiff/.../002025_0100_010722_l7_01_utm21.tif > 55474027 > geotools/branches/geotiff_simone/.../002025_0100_010722_l7_01_utm21.tif > 12375769 geotools/trunk/gt/plugin/image/.../po_168213_blu_0000000.tif > 8809581 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/branches/.../test-data/W020N90.zip > 8809581 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/trunk/gt/.../testData/W020N90.zip > 8809581 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/trunk/.../test-data/W020N90.zip > 8809572 geotools/trunk/gt/plugin/gtopo30/test/.../testData/W020N90.zip > 8809572 geotools/trunk/gt/plugin/gtopo30/test/.../testData/W020N90.zip > 7549755 geotools/trunk/spike/arcGrid/test/.../arcgrid_test_data.zip.zip > 7549755 geotools/trunk/spike/arcGrid/test/.../arcgrid_test_data.zip > 7549755 geotools/branches/2.3.x/ext/coverage_dev/.../arcgrid_test_data.zip > 7549746 geotools/branches/2.3.x/ext/coverage_dev/.../arcgrid_test_data.zip > 7549746 geotools/trunk/spike/ecw/test/.../test-data/arcgrid_test_data.zip > 7549746 geotools/branches/2.3.x/ext/coverage_dev.../arcgrid_test_data.zip > 6548376 geotools/trunk/gt/doc/C/output/geotools.ps > 4993783 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/.../test-data/fme/roads/roads.xml > 4993783 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/.../test-data/test1/roads.xml > 4993783 geotools/branches/coverages_branch/.../xml/fme/roads/roads.xml > > > As a side note, uDig SVN has big files too, especially JAR files (actually, > when > I merge GeoTools and uDig in the same list, most huge files except the two > first > TIFF files are in uDig SVN). > > I also have interrogation about some branches. Belows is the total spaces used > by some directories. I put a few tags for comparaison purpose, so you can see > that "svn copy" has a cost close to zero. I don't know why GeoTools 2.3 tags > consume ~300 kb - I would find surprising that changing "2.3-SNAPSHOT" to > "2.3.1" alone would consume that much space. But note also the size of the > "2.3" > and "coverages_branch" branches. > > Size Directory > --------- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > 254368801 geotools/trunk/gt > 148524305 geotools/branches/coverages_branch > 64509158 geotools/branches/2.3.x > 22405164 geotools/branches/2.2.x > 13654188 geotools/branches/2.4.x > 12371022 geotools/branches/2.0.x > 11298431 geotools/branches/2.1.x > 326196 geotools/tags/2.3.5 > 319696 geotools/tags/2.3.3 > 319503 geotools/tags/2.3.2 > 318896 geotools/tags/2.3.1 > 258548 geotools/tags/2.3.0 > 200867 geotools/tags/2.2.1 > 124435 geotools/tags/2.1.0 > 28141 geotools/tags/2.2.2 > 4492 geotools/tags/2.2.0 > 0 geotools/tags/2.1.1 > 0 geotools/tags/2.3.4 > > I suspect (but have not verified) that the 2.3 branch has been created using > "svn copy" as we should, but from that point a lot of code has been merged > from > trunk using copy-and-paste then "svn add" from Eclipse IDE. For example the 4 > Mb > EPSG.sql file has been "svn added" to the 2.3 branch, not "svn copied" from > trunk. > > For "coverages_branch", I suspect (but have not verified) that the whole > directory has been "svn added" rather than "svn copied". If this branch is not > needed anymore, I would like to drop it completly given the large amout of > space > it consumes. >
go ahead and kill the branch man! Simone. > Martin > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft > Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > Geotools-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel > -- ------------------------------------------------------- Eng. Simone Giannecchini President /CEO GeoSolutions S.A.S. Via Carignoni 51 55041 Camaiore (LU) Italy phone: +39 0584983027 fax: +39 0584983027 mob: +39 333 8128928 http://www.geo-solutions.it ------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Geotools-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/geotools-devel
