From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2007 00:51:50 GMT
Subject: Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial
Message-ID: <7v3az1samx.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <86tzrikz5x.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>

David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> writes:

> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>
>>  * With -l, as long as the source repository is healthy, it is
>>    very likely that the recipient would be, too.  Also it is
>>    very cheap.  You do not get any back-up benefit.
>
> Oh, but one does: an overzealous prune or rm -oopswrongoption in one
> repo does not hurt the other.

That's not "back-up" benefit I was thinking about.  It is more
about protecting your data from hardware failure.  You
physically have bits in two places, preferrably on separate disk
drives.

And that is what you do not get from hardlinked clone.