Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial

From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Date: Aug 1, 2007, 09:24 UTC
Message-ID: <20070801092428.GB28106@thunk.org>
In-Reply-To: <7vodhrby6f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:50:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

> I would call aversion to -l a superstition, while aversion to -s
> has a sound technical reasons.  The latter means you need to know
> what you are doing --- namely, you are making the clone still
> dependent on the original.

So would you accept a patch which adds a git-config variable which specifies whether or not local clones should use hard links by default (defaulting to yes), and which adds a --no-hard-links option to git-clone to override the config option?

I could imagine a situation where if you are using a git repository exclusively on a local system, with no remote repositories to act as backups, where you might want git clone to to make full copies to provide backups in case of filesystem or disk induced corruption. But most of the time there are enough copies of the the repo on other machines that the need for making separate copies of the git objects/packs isn't really needed.

					- Ted