Hacker News Reader

Comment by silverbax88 | Hacker News Reader

Git for large projects is not lightweight, nor do they claim to be. In fact, that's the basis of their philosophy - that they store full versions of the files as opposed to just storing the changes because data storage is considered inexpensive. The only time Git uses pointers in when the files have not changed.

I'm certainly not slamming Git for working exactly the way it was intended.

View on HN

I think you may be thinking of a different VCS such as SVN as Git actually just stores the meta data (changes/deltas) and not full versions of the file in each commit.

As an example when you clone a repository, it downloaded it, then in goes through a process of 'Resolving Deltas'. This is it going through the history applying the changes/deltas to the files so that they are up to the most recent revision.

The only files that are added in full are binary files.

Some reading: http://git-scm.com/book/en/Git-Internals-Packfiles :)

To be fair, it uses the full blob until you pack, which is not immediately and depends on your settings. Large repositories spend a significant amount of effort determining optimum window pack sizes etc to optimise the packing of their history.

So, git can be quite heavy on disk usage, until all the loose objects are packed.

Pro-tip: when you want people to understand a comment you're making about the disk-consumption patterns of one piece of software vs another rather than memory-consumption, consider actually referring to it as "disk-consumption". Git is quite lightweight, if we're actually talking about memory.

Also, maybe don't confuse git with GitHub, as your original comment did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com