[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:0.234 / U:8.388 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site