Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial
- From
David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>
- Date
- Aug 1, 2007, 08:48 UTC
- Message-ID
- <86myxbod1j.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz>
- In-Reply-To
- <7vodhrby6f.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.cox.net>
Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
Show 11 quoted lines
> Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> writes: > >> (Which admittedly is a bit odd. The reason I didn't ever seriously even >> consider monotone was that the initial import was so *incredibly* sucky, >> and took hours for the kernel. So use "-l" for benchmarks, and damn my >> "I hate hardlinking repos" idiocy). > > 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.
Well, I'd not call the -l aversy a complete superstition: it means that cloning a repository won't provide any redundancy worth noting against file system corruption.
-- David Kastrup