Official git export

[K. Macy]

 is indeed relevant for many of us.
>
> So the full history for head clocks in around 570MB whereas a history
> from r225000 onward will take up 164MB of space. I really think that
> this factor <4x is something people should just accept. It is a one-time
> thing anyway, and if they managed to download an ISO image of FreeBSD or
> have Xorg and Firefox installed, they had to download more than that
> before.
>
> Funnily enough, people with time and bandwidth constraints are those
> that profit from git the most! :)
>
> But noone's forcing anybody to use git, so if svn works better for those
> folk (I can hardly imagine how), just continue using it. It's not going
> away.

While I appreciate your evident understanding of git, it would seem
that I have not successfully communicated my intent to you. It is
possible that my needs and the needs of those with whom I work
regularly do not intersect with yours and thus my observations will
not seem germane.

What *I* am discussing, is not git vs. svn, but the areas which could
make git work better for those of us who would like to use it in the
way that I have been doing. The full history of HEAD is not useful to
most of us. However,  the full history of the most recent stable
branches, e.g. 7 and 8 is. As far as I understand Fabien had to put in
a fair amount of effort to create a git repository of a manageable
size.

I feel that your either A or B emphasis is diminishing the potential
value of this discussion.


Cheers