[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Git?

Trent W. Buck wrote:
> John Goerzen <jgoerzen@complete.org> writes:
>> Git repos are very fast and space-efficient.  Last I checked, the .git
>> for the entire history of the Linux kernel was smaller than the
>> unpacked tar file of a single version of it.
> Linux is a huge codebase with a huge number of contributors.  I don't
> dispute that speed and size are THE most important things for that
> project.  But maybe they aren't so important for Debianization of a
> Haskell library with a dozen files and a couple of maintainers?

I agree, and I'm not the one that brought it up.  I don't use Git for
that reason, and I'm not suggesting it here.  Git is competitive.

> As an equally unrepresentative counter-anecdote:
> twb> After running etckeeper for a few months, I noticed that /etc/.git
> twb> constituted four fifths of my /etc tree.  Running git-gc
> twb> significantly improved this ratio.
>   -- http://bugs.debian.org/483804
> Babysitting repos by manually running git-gc every couple of weeks is
> not my idea of fun.

And you don't have to.  git-gc effectively runs automatically,
transparently, behind the scenes on modern gits.

>> Using simple git repos for each project is a known approach, works
>> well, and is already supported by all sorts of tools out there.  We
>> can do it today, with zero tool hacking, and maybe some minimal shell
>> scripts to manage it all on the side.
> That is certainly an argument in git's favour... or svn's :-)

There are plenty of arguments against svn just because of what svn is.

-- John

Reply to: