Ralf Corsepius wrote: > SVN's major "con" is it being comparatively generous on local > diskspace and it polluting a checked out source trees with huge > amount of VCS-metadata files (git, mercurial do so as well). Git and mercurial both keep their files in one top-level dir, e.g. .git or .hg. This doesn't count as "polluting the tree" in my mind. It's certainly not as annoying as the "CVS" dirs that CVS puts all over my tree. Sure, the disk space is higher for a git clone than for a CVS checkout, but with git you are getting the entire history of the project instead of just one working copy as you do with CVS (or Subversion) -- I consider this a free backup with each checkout. The advantage of not having to wait for diffs and logs across a network is well worth the disk space. And, if you're developing on a single box holding the repository and working copy, both CVS and Subversion generally use more disk space than git does -- with Subversion being significantly worse than CVS in this area. Git is also very efficient with regards to storage. I have often found that an entire git repository is significantly smaller than a single Subversion working copy. As another point of information, according to http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion, "the Mozilla project's CVS repository is about 3 GB; it's about 12 GB in Subversion's fsfs format. In Git it's around 300 MB." -- Todd OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A pessimist is a person who has had to listen to too many optimists. -- Don Marquis
Attachment:
pgp98uf1tNGqZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
