list mirror (unofficial, one of many)
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed
From: "brian m. carlson" <>
To: Alireza <>,
Subject: Re: Why Git LFS is not a built-in feature
Date: Sat, 14 Nov 2020 19:15:31 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201114162700.cvmxzcs4sdhsxpak@chatter.i7.local>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2187 bytes --]

On 2020-11-14 at 16:27:00, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2020 at 12:29:02AM +0000, brian m. carlson wrote:
> > Additionally, in many cases, projects can avoid the need for storing
> > large files at all by using repository best practices, like not storing
> > build products or binary dependencies in the repository and instead
> > using an artifact server or a standard packaging system.  If possible,
> > that will almost always provide a better experience than any solution
> > for storing large files in the repository.
> Well, I would argue that if the goal is ongoing archival and easy
> replication, then storing objects in a repository like git makes a lot
> more sense than keeping them on a central server that may or may not be
> there a few years down the line. Having large file support native in git
> is a laudable goal and I quite often wish that it existed.

Sure, and I think that's a different goal than the typical source code
or writing project (documentation, book, etc.) repository.  For example,
one can use Git repositories to do backups using the tool bup, which
actually works quite well but isn't a traditional use of Git.

The typical use case is that the user wants to store some reasonably
sized project on their local system and possibly also collaborate with
others for that, and with that goal, it makes sense to make the
repository not be absurdly large, since most developer systems don't
have tons of storage.  As Ævar and I mentioned, there are built-in
options for large files that make this use case more palatable with
native Git tooling.  But for this particular use case, it doesn't
logically make sense to store build assets, whether they're yours or
others', in this project repository.

If your goal is archival and replication, then a tool like bup might
meet your needs, or simply a large repository with many objects.  But in
that context, you'll likely have more storage, CPU, and memory available
to you and the need for large file support will look different (e.g.,
core.bigFileThreshold) or not be present at all.
brian m. carlson (he/him or they/them)
Houston, Texas, US

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 263 bytes --]

      parent reply	other threads:[~2020-11-14 19:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-13  9:45 Alireza
2020-11-14  0:29 ` brian m. carlson
2020-11-14 16:27   ` Konstantin Ryabitsev
2020-11-14 18:20     ` Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason
2020-11-18 10:20       ` Partial clone demo for large files (Re: Why Git LFS is not a built-in feature) Christian Couder
2020-11-14 19:15     ` brian m. carlson [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

  List information:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: Why Git LFS is not a built-in feature' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this inbox:

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).