Trent W. Buck wrote: > John Goerzen <[email protected]> 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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
