I guess I wasn't clear.

1) on work machine, do "git mv" on 55 files. This is fairly fast.
2) on work machine, do "git push" to the repository.
   This pushes the data to the repository on my home machine via ssh. This 
went quickly
3) on work machine, use ssh to bring up a Linux terminal session at home.
4) on home machine, do a "git pull" to pull from the repository on my home 
machine. This went slowly.

>From watching what was happening by using a second terminal session on my 
home machine, I noticed that all 55 of the existing files were deleted. 
Then all 55 were uncompressed/restored from the repository (on the home 
machine). And these 55 files total up to 13 gig. Each is about 2-3 meg, 
except for one which is 1.4 gig. Home machine is a Core i7 running 2.66Ghz.

On Thursday, December 13, 2012 9:10:09 AM UTC-6, John McKown wrote:
> This may not be a shock to most, but it was a real surprise to me. I have 
> two machines. One at work. One at home. I am using git to keep a project in 
> sync between the two. I have a working directory on both machines. On my 
> home machine, I have a separate "repository" which is on my home machine. 
> So I do the changes in the "working directory" (either at work or at home) 
> and "git push" and "git pull" to/from the repository to maintain 
> synchronization. It works well. I decided that I wanted to do some renames 
> on my work machine. I had 55 text files which I decided I should have a 
> ".txt" suffix on. So I did a "git mv" on each, adding the ".txt" to the end 
> of the file name. I did a "git commit" after each "git mv" detailing the 
> renaming, similar to:"rename x to x.txt". I then did a "git push" to my 
> repository (which did an SSH push to my home machine). Worked fairly fast, 
> although the "git commit" was a bit slow. Anyway, I then did an "ssh" onto 
> my home machine. Did a "cd" to the working directory and did a "git pull". 
> Oh my word. It seemed to take forever. I did a second ssh to get another 
> terminal session going. I guess that I should have known, but what actually 
> happened was that the "git pull" deleted all the old versions of the files 
> from my working directory, then expanded the compressed versions back with 
> the new name. I guess I was expecting a simple rename. Not a delete / 
> restore. 
> OK, people "in the know" may have expected this. But it was a complete 
> shock to me. And I thought it might be of interest to other newbies.


Reply via email to