From: Paolo Ciarrocchi <paolo.ciarrocchi@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 13:46:21 GMT
Subject: Re: Mercurial vs Updated git HOWTO for kernel hackers
Message-ID: <4d8e3fd3050624064620a4945e@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20050624133952.GB7445@thunk.org>

2005/6/24, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>:
> 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