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

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Aug 1, 2007, 10:15 UTC
Message-ID: <7vr6mn5znm.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
In-Reply-To: <20070801092428.GB28106@thunk.org>

Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

Show 10 quoted lines

> 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?

Are you suggesting to make -l the default for local, in other words? I personally do not make local clone often enough that I am not disturbed having to type extra " -l" on the command line.

But giving a way to force "copy not hardlink" while still avoiding "the same as the networked case by doing pack transfer" overhead may be a good thing to do.

Perhaps if the destination is local,

         - if -s is given, just set up alternates, do nothing else;
         - by default, do "always copy never hardlink";
         - with -l, do "hardlink if possible";

Hmmmm...