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: