On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:28 PM, Peter Teuben <teu...@astro.umd.edu> wrote: > from a pragmatic point of view, i like CVS more than svn. Don't even mention > git or mercurial. don't know about the > latter, but with git you get the kitchen sink. the normal "git checkout" > gives you a repo which contains each and > every version, which in my view is nice if you travel a lot at 35k (but even > then, they promise us internet up there) > but why bloat the drive so much, even if disk space is cheap... Can you > imagine how large the kernel version of git > now will be....
I don't want to start a flamewar here, but you should compare CVS, SVN, and git repositories for the same project - in many cases, the git repository is the smallest, since it stores revisions in a very compact format (among other things guaranteeing single-instance storage), and *then* gzips them. SVN keeps an extra copy of *every* file, and CVS only avoids doing so by keeping all of the history on the server (so you can't even see what you've changed without waiting for many network round-trips). You don't have to like Git, or any of the DVCS's, but you'll need a better reason :) Dustin P.S. I have a particularly nice birds-eye view of the various VC's available -- Buildbot supports 10 of them! -- Open Source Storage Engineer http://www.zmanda.com
