[cvsnt] Betr.: CVSNT to CVS

Andreas Krey a.krey at gmx.de
Mon Apr 13 20:36:27 BST 2009


On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:50:48 +0000, Tony Hoyle wrote:
...
> That's not how auditing works.. you need to audit everything.  In some 
> industries that's a legal requirement.  That means right down to the 
> diffs.  You don't get to decide what stuff is worth storing.

If you don't want me to decide when I'm doing a 'git push' or 'cvs commit'
then you need to make regular snapshots of my sandbox, and also need to
monitor whether I ever pass around source files outside revision control.

(On the corp-git isssue: It would be thinkable to have a special version
of git that does all the auditing and passes it on to a central logging
server. Of course for the paranoid it needs to be made incompatible with
the regular git protocol and repository format.)

On the binary part: I did a pretty interesting experiment. I have a
lot of revisions of some software that is compiled into a set of
installable packages. Those contain the already-compressed binaries.
If I pack the set of packets of each release individually into a
tar file, they are hardly compressible. If I tar together all individual
tar files and zip the result, where is still hardly a saving.
If I commit all versions of the result directory into git, the resulting
repo is also the expected 400MB in size. However, after a 'git repack -d'
it shrinks to a mere 51 MB. Somehow git seems to be rather smart when it
comes to compress binary content revisions. I need to add that none of
the stored revisions of the files are identical; each build yielded different
files, however slightly (different build info in each package file,
and also in the contained and compressed binaries).

Andreas


More information about the cvsnt mailing list
Download the latest CVSNT, TortosieCVS, WinCVS etc. for Windows 8 etc.
@CVSNT on Twitter   CVSNT on Facebook