> 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.
Thank you for pointing this out, I wasn't aware of this work. I'm assuming you can't push because you need all the repo content to the proper diff, is that right? I think git is a great choice for most projects. Like any piece of software, there is a learning curve, and with git the curve isn't tiny. However, there is a subset of basic git commands that are perfectly straightforward, and it's not so hard to explain them to a non-programmer. Not to mention the command line user interfaces have improved so much and will continue to improve for the non-programmer. The fact that you get the whole repo locally is almost always an advantage. I have this debate often, but I find that no one says it better than Linus Torvalds himself, in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:59 PM, Richard Matthew McCutchen <rmccu...@umd.edu> wrote: > 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 >
