Community technical support mailing list was retired 2010 and replaced with a professional technical support team. For assistance please contact: Pre-sales Technical support via email to email@example.com.
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