Tom P wrote: > Well, it's more an argument in favor of splitting the data and source > code, like it's already the case for the Scenery > http://code.google.com/p/terrascenery/
Terrascenery is a somewhat special case in that it has almost just one single, automated feed, it is destined to never require any review before commit, will likely never see a branch and therefore doesn't fit well as a comparison in the context of the current discussion. Just for the record: Pulling Scenery from an SVN repository requires a little bit more than twice the local disk space compared to the net size of the respective content - which is almost the same ratio as with GIT, at least for stuff like the Base Package. > And here's a page comparing SVN, GIT and Mercurial. It's light on > details but might help a bit with the decision: > http://www.russellbeattie.com/blog/distributed-revision-control-systems-git-vs-mercurial-vs-svn Well, this article was written more than two years before now, when GIT as well as Mercurial had been quite young projects. Much has changed until now. Cheers, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list Flightgear-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/flightgear-devel
