TortoiseGit really slow on Windows 7 machine
One of my colleagues uses a Windows 7 machine with TortoiseGit and it is tortuously slow even just running a git status. He is using the TortoisePlink method of connection and key serving.
Each commit is taking about 5 minutes before the changed files list is populated let alone the actual commit itself. Pushing and pull take even more time and woe betide him when there is a merge conflict!
I am unsure what is causing it to be so slow as all operations appear to be compromised not just those that access the network (push/pull/etc).
The one caveat to all of this is that he is operating on files that are shared over Samba from an Ubuntu 10.10 box.
I have not had any luck getting it to run any faster on his machine by removing and re-installing TortoiseGit and MSysGit. Any other ideas to make it faster?
He is using TortoisePlink to be able to make use of Pageant and multiple keys.
git windows-7 samba
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 10 '12 at 0:04
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
One of my colleagues uses a Windows 7 machine with TortoiseGit and it is tortuously slow even just running a git status. He is using the TortoisePlink method of connection and key serving.
Each commit is taking about 5 minutes before the changed files list is populated let alone the actual commit itself. Pushing and pull take even more time and woe betide him when there is a merge conflict!
I am unsure what is causing it to be so slow as all operations appear to be compromised not just those that access the network (push/pull/etc).
The one caveat to all of this is that he is operating on files that are shared over Samba from an Ubuntu 10.10 box.
I have not had any luck getting it to run any faster on his machine by removing and re-installing TortoiseGit and MSysGit. Any other ideas to make it faster?
He is using TortoisePlink to be able to make use of Pageant and multiple keys.
git windows-7 samba
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 10 '12 at 0:04
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
One of my colleagues uses a Windows 7 machine with TortoiseGit and it is tortuously slow even just running a git status. He is using the TortoisePlink method of connection and key serving.
Each commit is taking about 5 minutes before the changed files list is populated let alone the actual commit itself. Pushing and pull take even more time and woe betide him when there is a merge conflict!
I am unsure what is causing it to be so slow as all operations appear to be compromised not just those that access the network (push/pull/etc).
The one caveat to all of this is that he is operating on files that are shared over Samba from an Ubuntu 10.10 box.
I have not had any luck getting it to run any faster on his machine by removing and re-installing TortoiseGit and MSysGit. Any other ideas to make it faster?
He is using TortoisePlink to be able to make use of Pageant and multiple keys.
git windows-7 samba
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
One of my colleagues uses a Windows 7 machine with TortoiseGit and it is tortuously slow even just running a git status. He is using the TortoisePlink method of connection and key serving.
Each commit is taking about 5 minutes before the changed files list is populated let alone the actual commit itself. Pushing and pull take even more time and woe betide him when there is a merge conflict!
I am unsure what is causing it to be so slow as all operations appear to be compromised not just those that access the network (push/pull/etc).
The one caveat to all of this is that he is operating on files that are shared over Samba from an Ubuntu 10.10 box.
I have not had any luck getting it to run any faster on his machine by removing and re-installing TortoiseGit and MSysGit. Any other ideas to make it faster?
He is using TortoisePlink to be able to make use of Pageant and multiple keys.
git windows-7 samba
git windows-7 samba
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
asked Mar 15 '11 at 9:57
TreffynnonTreffynnon
20428
20428
migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 10 '12 at 0:04
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
migrated from stackoverflow.com Oct 10 '12 at 0:04
This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.
add a comment |
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
Are you saying that the repository he has cloned is on a Samba share, or that he's actually directly using a working directory on a Samba share? If it's the latter, I'd strongly recommend cloning the repository locally (that's how git is supposed to be used). If not, I don't know why local operations such as status or commit are so slow. You might want to try out GitExtensions with MSysGit; I'm using it on Windows 7 (on a local hard drive) and am very happy with it.
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
add a comment |
I think it's due to msysgit being slow when UAC is enabled on windows 7:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=320
add a comment |
In my case it was the icon overlays which were slowing down windows explorer. Uninstalled TortoiseGit and everything is lightning-fast now.
... and yes, I only had icon overlays active on my git repository folders. Not all the folders on my C: drive.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
add a comment |
I was experiencing the same issue on Windows 7.
TortoiseGit (especially log and rebase) immensely slow (5 or 10 min "not responding"), and win explorer right-click context menu as well (30 sec to show up).
Killing the "TGitCache.exe" process solved it.
I found that workaround at: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1797
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f485638%2ftortoisegit-really-slow-on-windows-7-machine%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Are you saying that the repository he has cloned is on a Samba share, or that he's actually directly using a working directory on a Samba share? If it's the latter, I'd strongly recommend cloning the repository locally (that's how git is supposed to be used). If not, I don't know why local operations such as status or commit are so slow. You might want to try out GitExtensions with MSysGit; I'm using it on Windows 7 (on a local hard drive) and am very happy with it.
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
add a comment |
Are you saying that the repository he has cloned is on a Samba share, or that he's actually directly using a working directory on a Samba share? If it's the latter, I'd strongly recommend cloning the repository locally (that's how git is supposed to be used). If not, I don't know why local operations such as status or commit are so slow. You might want to try out GitExtensions with MSysGit; I'm using it on Windows 7 (on a local hard drive) and am very happy with it.
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
add a comment |
Are you saying that the repository he has cloned is on a Samba share, or that he's actually directly using a working directory on a Samba share? If it's the latter, I'd strongly recommend cloning the repository locally (that's how git is supposed to be used). If not, I don't know why local operations such as status or commit are so slow. You might want to try out GitExtensions with MSysGit; I'm using it on Windows 7 (on a local hard drive) and am very happy with it.
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
Are you saying that the repository he has cloned is on a Samba share, or that he's actually directly using a working directory on a Samba share? If it's the latter, I'd strongly recommend cloning the repository locally (that's how git is supposed to be used). If not, I don't know why local operations such as status or commit are so slow. You might want to try out GitExtensions with MSysGit; I'm using it on Windows 7 (on a local hard drive) and am very happy with it.
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
answered Mar 15 '11 at 10:03
Aasmund EldhusetAasmund Eldhuset
1384
1384
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
add a comment |
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
1
1
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
He has cloned onto a Samba share on the server and not on his local machine. The reason for this is we have a central development server for our web applications with each developer having their own sub domain. Which I have documented blog.simonholywell.com/post/1516566788/team-development-server for anyone interested.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:17
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
A quick experiment cloning locally and cloning onto Samba shows markedly different results like you suggest. I am using Ubuntu and I work over the same Samba shares as well in the same way. My operations using git-cli over Samba is much faster and almost identical to the same operation performed on the server itself over SSH.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 10:20
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I don't have time to read the article right now (and I know next to nothing about Apache), but are the developers RDP'ing or SSH'ing into the server and working there (if so, they should clone onto a local drive on the server), or are they developing locally and deploying onto the server (if so, they should clone first onto the dev server and then from the dev server onto a local drive on their own machines, and push changes to their dev server repo)?
– Aasmund Eldhuset
Mar 15 '11 at 10:57
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
I get what you mean. This particular developer does not have linux command line skills and works with HTML/CSS. So he works directly on the development server editing files via the samba share so he can see his changes in the web browser immediately. The git workflow you mention sounds good, but is a but cumbersome in practice given the type of work we do. It seems like I might have to look at the way his computer is working on the network.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:44
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
Thanks for your help though and we are going to give GitExtensions a go at the end of the working day.
– Treffynnon
Mar 15 '11 at 14:45
add a comment |
I think it's due to msysgit being slow when UAC is enabled on windows 7:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=320
add a comment |
I think it's due to msysgit being slow when UAC is enabled on windows 7:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=320
add a comment |
I think it's due to msysgit being slow when UAC is enabled on windows 7:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=320
I think it's due to msysgit being slow when UAC is enabled on windows 7:
http://code.google.com/p/msysgit/issues/detail?id=320
answered Jun 7 '11 at 15:22
Silex
add a comment |
add a comment |
In my case it was the icon overlays which were slowing down windows explorer. Uninstalled TortoiseGit and everything is lightning-fast now.
... and yes, I only had icon overlays active on my git repository folders. Not all the folders on my C: drive.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
add a comment |
In my case it was the icon overlays which were slowing down windows explorer. Uninstalled TortoiseGit and everything is lightning-fast now.
... and yes, I only had icon overlays active on my git repository folders. Not all the folders on my C: drive.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
add a comment |
In my case it was the icon overlays which were slowing down windows explorer. Uninstalled TortoiseGit and everything is lightning-fast now.
... and yes, I only had icon overlays active on my git repository folders. Not all the folders on my C: drive.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
In my case it was the icon overlays which were slowing down windows explorer. Uninstalled TortoiseGit and everything is lightning-fast now.
... and yes, I only had icon overlays active on my git repository folders. Not all the folders on my C: drive.
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
answered Oct 9 '12 at 20:38
YeeHaw1234YeeHaw1234
1114
1114
add a comment |
add a comment |
I was experiencing the same issue on Windows 7.
TortoiseGit (especially log and rebase) immensely slow (5 or 10 min "not responding"), and win explorer right-click context menu as well (30 sec to show up).
Killing the "TGitCache.exe" process solved it.
I found that workaround at: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1797
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
add a comment |
I was experiencing the same issue on Windows 7.
TortoiseGit (especially log and rebase) immensely slow (5 or 10 min "not responding"), and win explorer right-click context menu as well (30 sec to show up).
Killing the "TGitCache.exe" process solved it.
I found that workaround at: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1797
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
add a comment |
I was experiencing the same issue on Windows 7.
TortoiseGit (especially log and rebase) immensely slow (5 or 10 min "not responding"), and win explorer right-click context menu as well (30 sec to show up).
Killing the "TGitCache.exe" process solved it.
I found that workaround at: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1797
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
I was experiencing the same issue on Windows 7.
TortoiseGit (especially log and rebase) immensely slow (5 or 10 min "not responding"), and win explorer right-click context menu as well (30 sec to show up).
Killing the "TGitCache.exe" process solved it.
I found that workaround at: https://gitlab.com/tortoisegit/tortoisegit/issues/1797
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
answered Jan 10 at 10:56
Nuno AlmeidaNuno Almeida
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f485638%2ftortoisegit-really-slow-on-windows-7-machine%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
