Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers
- From
- Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
- Date
- Jun 24, 2005, 13:46 UTC
- Message-ID
- <4d8e3fd3050624064620a4945e@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <20050624133952.GB7445@thunk.org>
2005/6/24, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>:
Show 18 quoted lines
> On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 03:06:04PM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 08:41:01AM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote: > > > Cool. Except where the concepts are just different, Cogito mostly > > > appears at least equally simple to use as Mercurial. Yes, some features > > > are missing yet. I hope to fix that soon. :-) > > > > The user interface and network protocol isn't the big deal, the big deal > > is the more efficient on-disk storage format IMHO. > > E2fsprogs with the full revision history imported into git is 100 > megs, and that's with deltas. E2fsprogs imported into Mercurial is 17 > megs (and actually, the imported repository was just a tad bit smaller > than e2fsprogs' BK repository). > > Which do you think is going to be faster to operate from a cold start > using 4200 rpm laptop drives? :-) > > - Ted
That's quite intersting, what the rational behind such a difference in terms of disk occupation ?
-- Paolo