Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 03:28:26 +0800 From: Erich Dollansky <erichsfreebsdlist@alogt.com> To: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: size of source tree Message-ID: <20140413032826.31b9e597@X220.alogt.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404121034080.34556@wonkity.com> References: <20140412115423.11092d84@X220.alogt.com> <5348F8AF.2080606@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20140412170902.135294e4@X220.alogt.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1404121034080.34556@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:34:43 -0600 (MDT) Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> wrote: > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014, Erich Dollansky wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Apr 2014 09:26:23 +0100 > > Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: > > > >> On 12/04/2014 04:54, Erich Dollansky wrote: > >>> The source tree dated 26.03.14 has a size of some 899GM while > >>> today's source tree has some 1.8GB. > >>> > >>> Why is it suddenly so huge? > >>> > >> > >> How were these source trees obtained? A checkout from SVN will > >> have a .svn directory containing pristine copies of all of the > >> files, which will pretty much double the space requirement. > >> > > both have been obtained with svn. The smaller one was started last > > year with the then current version of svn. > > Have you run 'svn cleanup' on it? my scripts use this whenever they run into trouble. Could this be the cause? Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140413032826.31b9e597>