Hi Bjoern, Dne Friday 04 of June 2010 09:47:02 bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany napsal(a):
> > Your repos on the server would grow substantially, while with git > > (with the alternates setup - one line!) they would not. Even after > > the push, they'd grow just by the amount of data that was actually > > transferred (as explained, a small fraction of what is pushed now), > > nothing more. > > Wrong. Pushing/Pulling completely locally on the remote server would be > just creation of hardlinks and would not require additional copies of > the changesets. So, no: there is no advantage for git here. Are you sure? This is of course true for cloning, but from what I see, everything that has branched (ie. every file that has different history in those two repositories) is tracked on its own, and cannot be hardlinked. Similarly changelogs and manifests (which are the painful hits - more than 300M for DEV300 per CWS). But maybe I just don't understand Mercurial enough - sorry in that case. Anyway, we are really getting off-topic. Regards, Kendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
