No subject

talk, git stores the files in its database, since it is a DAG oriented
SCM. It may send the diffs, but actualy stores the files.


> 
>> ADSL is coping well with that... But there are still some places in the
>> world which donot have access to wide bandwidth.
> 
> True.  But a Git clone (of the public repo) is a once-and-done
> operation.  Anybody installing Koha for production use could use the
> tarball or (even better) the Debian package.  Particularly because of
> the Debian package, we're getting past the point where dev mode would
> be recommend for use by single-library production installations.
> 
> I've been doing some measurements.  A PO-only repository would be
> about 50M in size, and creating such a thing is the easy part.  But if
> we move misc/translator/po to a separate repository, we would have to
> also remove that directory from the main repository in order to
> realize the repository size savings motivating your proposal - a 'git
> rm misc/translator/po' wouldn't reduce the size of the repo.  My test
> run is not quite finished yet (it takes a long time for
> git-filter-branch to handle almost 13,000 commits), but even assuming
> that 50M could be pared from the main repository, actually doing that
> would come at a significant cost: every commit would be rewritten by
> the git-filter-branch operation.  Rewriting history like that could
> mean that every single person who clones against the public repo could
> have to deal with forced branch updates, to say nothing of
> invalidating all of the release tags.
I don't think all the release tags would be broken.
And it would allow to release localisation at a different pace... When
there is a need.

> 
> That prospect doesn't hearten me.  I'll report back once my test finishes.
Thanks for your update.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Galen

Regards.
-- 
Henri-Damien LAURENT