RE: Git vs Monotone

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.

Then again, Pidgin is, among other things, a Windows project. I.e. hardlinks are not exactly trivial. There's a good chance nobody jumped through the hoops of junction points for git on win32... (Somebody correct me if I'm wrong)

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.

Well, he *did* try it, for *one* repository. He just didn't know that there's a better way than having 11 clones. And I lay the blame for that squarely at the git documentation ;)

Yes, I know, why don't I make it better...?

Because I'm fairly new to git and would feel like an idiot 'documenting' something that I feel I've only scratched the surface of. I do expect to write a few uninformed rants on my blog, though. And maybe at some point, I can contribute to actual docs :)

Either way, it's another interesting data point for all of us still comparing DVCSs. I just wish he had comments on his blog so somebody could inform him that he's mistaken...


 - Robert