RE: Git vs Monotone

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Craig L. Ching wrote:

It's possible he's doing that, but it's also possible he just isn't that
familiar with git.

Possible. But it really sounded like he didn't even try. Because quite 
frankly, if he had even bothered to _try_, he wouldn't have gotten the 
numbers he got.

The fact is, even without "-s", a local clone will do hardlinks for the 
database. And since the original pack-file is marked as a 'keep' file, 
that original pack-file won't even be broken apart.

So literally, if he had just bothered to even _try_ the git setup, he'd 
have noticed that git actually uses less disk than monotone would do. But 
it sounds like he didn't even try it.

So completely ignoring the fact that you could do a single database with 
git, and completely ignoring the fact that with git you'd probably use 
branches for at least some of those 11 repos anyway, he'd _still_ have had 
less disk space used by git unless he would do something intentionally odd 
(like clone all the repositories over the network separately).

			Linus