git/list[1] front-page[2] threads[3] people[4] search[5] about
 

Re: Git vs Monotone

From
Daniel Barkalow <barkalow@iabervon.org>
Date
Aug 1, 2008, 18:00 UTC
Message-ID
<alpine.LNX.1.00.0808011344060.19665@iabervon.org>
In-Reply-To
<bd6139dc0808010023r5d44e7a2ke062c9c39dfb865c@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, Sverre Rabbelier wrote:
Show 20 quoted lines
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 20:13, Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just read this blog post [0] in which one of the Pidgin devs sheds
> > his light on their 'tool choice'. In the post he mentions the
> > following figures:
> 
> > [0] http://theflamingbanker.blogspot.com/2008/07/holy-war-of-tool-choice.html
> 
> I have poked him on #pidgin, and he has added the following:
> 
> "Note: It's come to my attention that I had missed the ability to
> share a git database across multiple working copies. In that scenario,
> the total size of the database and 11 working copies is slightly under
> 750 MB, and thus a space savings in the neighborhood of 150 MB over
> monotone. It had been my understanding that I needed a copy of the
> database per working copy. I stand corrected. I don't use git on a
> daily basis, as the projects I work with currently use CVS, SVN, or
> monotone, so I am bound to miss finer details of git here and there.
> There are other reasons I prefer to stick with monotone, but I won't
> get into them here, as they're not important to the point of this
> post."

Did he retry the size calculation? I think someone on the list tried it and found that the clone, including the checkout, was (for them) the size that he thought was just the database; if you're used to having the clone equivalent be effectively --bare by default, it's an easy mistake, especially if you don't think it's possible for the entire project history to be smaller than a checkout.

Not that it actually matters to the comparison of monotone and SVN that was the actual point, but still, git is often more space-efficient than SVN even just on the client, even without any sharing between branches, just because uncompressed source is (relatively) huge. Which does, in a way, contribute to the point that SVN have a vast quantity of per-branch overhead.

	-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
Previous: Sverre Rabbelier
Message 33 of 33 in “Git vs Monotone”
  1. Sverre RabbelierJul 31, 2008
  2. Stephen R. van den BergJul 31, 2008
  3. Petr BaudisJul 31, 2008
  4. Jeff KingJul 31, 2008
  5. Craig L. ChingJul 31, 2008
  6. Sverre RabbelierJul 31, 2008
  7. Jeff KingJul 31, 2008
  8. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  9. Craig L. ChingJul 31, 2008
  10. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  11. Junio C HamanoJul 31, 2008
  12. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  13. Felipe ContrerasAug 23, 2008
  14. Blum, RobertJul 31, 2008
  15. Robin RosenbergAug 10, 2008
  16. David KastrupAug 1, 2008
  17. Monotone workflow compared to Git workflow ( was RE: Git vs Monotone)Craig L. Ching, Jul 31, 2008
  18. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  19. Shawn O. PearceJul 31, 2008
  20. Craig L. ChingJul 31, 2008
  21. Björn SteinbrinkJul 31, 2008
  22. Avery PennarunJul 31, 2008
  23. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  24. Martin LanghoffJul 31, 2008
  25. Linus TorvaldsJul 31, 2008
  26. Dmitry TorokhovAug 1, 2008
  27. Linus TorvaldsAug 1, 2008
  28. Linus TorvaldsAug 1, 2008
  29. Sean EstabrooksJul 31, 2008
  30. Theodore TsoJul 31, 2008
  31. Theodore TsoJul 31, 2008
  32. Sverre RabbelierAug 1, 2008
  33. Daniel BarkalowAug 1, 2008

Read the whole thread, see it on lore, or plain text.

$ cat FOOTERMessages come from the public archive at lore.kernel.org/git, fetched every hour. The front page is chosen and written each morning by an AI editor and can be wrong; the threads themselves are the record. About and API. For agents: an MCP server at https://gitlist.dev/mcp, and any thread, story or person page as Markdown by adding .md to its URL (or sending Accept: text/markdown). Details in /llms.txt.