[lkml]   [2005]   [Apr]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: more git updates..

    On Wed, 13 Apr 2005, Krzysztof Halasa wrote:
    > Does that mean that the 64 K changes imported from bk would take ~ 3 GB?
    > Is that real?

    That's a _guess_.

    > Have to tried to import it?

    It would take days.

    > I'm going to import the CVS data (with cvsps) - as the CVS "misses" half
    > the changes, the resulting archive should be half in size too?

    No. The CVS archive is going to be almost the same size. BKCVS gets about
    98% of all the data. It just doesn't show the complex merge graphs, but
    those are "small" in comparison.

    > I don't know how much space did bk use, but 3 GB for the full history
    > is reasonable for most people, isn't it? Especially that one can purge
    > older data.

    I think it's entirely reasonable, yes. But I may be off by an order of
    magnitude. I based the 3GB on estimating form the sparse tree, but I
    wasn't being too careful. Andrew estimated 2GB per year (at our current
    historical rate of changes) based on my merge with him. So it's in that
    general range of 3-6GB, I htink.

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.022 / U:136.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site