News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Why Perforce is more scalable than Git . Parent comment

Re:Why Perforce is more scalable than Git by mst on Sunday March 15, 2009 @10:41AM (#516852)
Well, rsync has a mode where you say "look, if the file size and timestamp are the same, please just assume it hasn't changed - I'm happy with this and am willing to accept that if that isn't sufficient any resulting problems are mine".

I wonder if having some way to tell git to do the same for files with a particular extension/in a particular directory would get us a decent amount of the way there?

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Perforce is more scalable than Git by silentbicycle on Sunday March 15, 2009 @11:07AM (#516867)
While I haven't checked the source, I'm pretty sure by default git doesn't re-hash any files unless the timestamps have changed. (I know Mercurial doesn't.)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Why Perforce is more scalable than Git by silentbicycle on Sunday March 15, 2009 @01:24PM (#516974)
The scaling situation for the top post would involve large binaries (builds or generated data) being added on a regular basis.

(oops, missed the edit window)

[ Parent | on HN ]