Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
... And since the original pack-file is marked as a 'keep' file,
that original pack-file won't even be broken apart.
Oops, isn't that something we fixed recently as a "bug"?
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).
Well, people are not perfect and they are free to express their opinions
based on faulty understanding of reality on their blogs. The right things
to do are (1) ignore them on the list and not waste many people's time,
and/or (2) educate them, but in private or in a circle where many other
similar ignorants benefit from such education. That is not here but
perhaps on #monotone channel?
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
... And since the original pack-file is marked as a 'keep' file,
that original pack-file won't even be broken apart.
Oops, isn't that something we fixed recently as a "bug"?
Ehh, apparently. I had thought it was a feature (not that it was me who
implemented it), and didn't realize that others thought it was a bug.
Oops.
The default *.keep file was _wonderful_ for cloning a large tree onto a
small machine. It did exactly the right thing (never mind any shared
repositories - it just made repacking much more reasonable).
So maybe it was unintentional (a "bug"), but I had always seen it as being
something good.
Linus
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:24 PM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Linus Torvalds [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
... And since the original pack-file is marked as a 'keep' file,
that original pack-file won't even be broken apart.
Oops, isn't that something we fixed recently as a "bug"?
quoted
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).
Well, people are not perfect and they are free to express their opinions
based on faulty understanding of reality on their blogs. The right things
to do are (1) ignore them on the list and not waste many people's time,
and/or (2) educate them, but in private or in a circle where many other
similar ignorants benefit from such education. That is not here but
perhaps on #monotone channel?
Hm, joined late to the discussion.
I had a lengthy discussion on pidgin's mailing list regarding my
analysis of monotone [1]. I didn't go very well. I don't think they
want to be educated about git.
It turns out they evaluated git as an option in the 1.0 days and they
disregarded it mainly because of the size of the repo; they didn't run
'git gc'. I fail to understand why they didn't drop in #git or asked
in the mailing list. That should tell you enough about their informed
decisions.
Anyway, that blog post was probably a way to justify their choice
after the discussion. With the added note now there's nothing that
makes git a bad choice for them, but surely they will find another
equally flawed reason.
Best regards.
[1] http://pidgin.im/pipermail/devel/2008-July/006308.html
--
Felipe Contreras