Re: Git vs Monotone
- From
- Sverre Rabbelier <alturin@gmail.com>
- Date
- Aug 1, 2008, 07:23 UTC
- Message-ID
- <bd6139dc0808010023r5d44e7a2ke062c9c39dfb865c@mail.gmail.com>
- In-Reply-To
- <bd6139dc0807311113n50dda9f0t1aab46b724510de2@mail.gmail.com>
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."
So I'm happy ;).
-- Cheers, Sverre Rabbelier