On Mon, 2 May 2005, Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
> If there is a functional reason to use git, something Mercurial doesn't
> do, then developers will and should use git. But the associated hassles
> with large change size, rather than the absolute size, are worth
> considering.
Note that we discussed this early on, and the issues with full-file
handling haven't changed. It does actually have real functional
advantages:
- you can share the objects freely between different trees, never
worrying about one tree corrupting another trees object by mistake.
- you can drop old objects.
delta models very fundamentally don't support this.
For example, a simple tree re-linker will work on any mirror site, and
work reliably, even if I end up uploading new objects with some tool that
doesn't know to break hardlinks etc. That can easily be much more than a
10x win for a git repository site (imagine something like bkbits.net, but
got git).
Whether it is a huge deal or not, I don't know. I do know that the big
deal to me is just the simplicity of the git object models. It makes me
trust it, even in the presense of inevitable bugs. It's a very safe model,
and right now safe is good.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
