Re: Git vs Monotone

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:

On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 20:13, Sverre Rabbelier [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

I just read this blog post [0] in which one of the Pidgin devs sheds
his light on their 'tool choice'. In the post he mentions the
following figures:

quoted

[0] http://theflamingbanker.blogspot.com/2008/07/holy-war-of-tool-choice.html

I have poked him on #pidgin, and he has added the following:

"Note: It's come to my attention that I had missed the ability to
share a git database across multiple working copies. In that scenario,
the total size of the database and 11 working copies is slightly under
750 MB, and thus a space savings in the neighborhood of 150 MB over
monotone. It had been my understanding that I needed a copy of the
database per working copy. I stand corrected. I don't use git on a
daily basis, as the projects I work with currently use CVS, SVN, or
monotone, so I am bound to miss finer details of git here and there.
There are other reasons I prefer to stick with monotone, but I won't
get into them here, as they're not important to the point of this
post."

Did he retry the size calculation? I think someone on the list tried it 
and found that the clone, including the checkout, was (for them) the size 
that he thought was just the database; if you're used to having the clone 
equivalent be effectively --bare by default, it's an easy mistake, 
especially if you don't think it's possible for the entire project history 
to be smaller than a checkout.

Not that it actually matters to the comparison of monotone and SVN that 
was the actual point, but still, git is often more space-efficient than 
SVN even just on the client, even without any sharing between branches, 
just because uncompressed source is (relatively) huge. Which does, in a 
way, contribute to the point that SVN have a vast quantity of per-branch
overhead.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*