On Tue, 2010-06-15 at 13:28 -0400, Peter Teuben 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....
My copy is 452 MiB; that goes back to Linux 2.6.12 (2005-04-16), when the developers started using git. The delta-compression is quite good. The repository is typically 1-3 times the size of the uncompressed source. Even if you do have internet access, the ability to mmap the history right from disk makes many commands incredibly fast. If you really don't want to spend the disk space, git does support "shallow" repositories that do not contain the full history, but they are not (yet) a complete replacement for CVS/SVN because one cannot push from them nor are old revisions automatically removed. > in cvs it's easy to add modules (new > directories with projects), whereas in svn if you add a new project - > even if unrelated - it will share in the revision > numbers, and i found that annoying and confusing. If you don't want the projects to share revision numbers, make a separate SVN repository. Likewise with git. -- Matt
