From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Theodore Tso Subject: Re: Git vs Monotone Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:05 -0400 Message-ID: <20080731192405.GC20819@mit.edu> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Git Mailinglist To: sverre@rabbelier.nl X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Thu Jul 31 21:25:14 2008 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1KOdlx-0006Fm-At for gcvg-git-2@gmane.org; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:25:13 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751777AbYGaTYM (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751875AbYGaTYL (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:11 -0400 Received: from www.church-of-our-saviour.ORG ([69.25.196.31]:37242 "EHLO thunker.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751146AbYGaTYK (ORCPT ); Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:10 -0400 Received: from root (helo=closure.thunk.org) by thunker.thunk.org with local-esmtp (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1KOdks-0001ej-79; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:06 -0400 Received: from tytso by closure.thunk.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KOdkr-0005o7-KW; Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:24:05 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@mit.edu X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on thunker.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 08:13:59PM +0200, Sverre Rabbelier 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: The main thing this proves was that the Pidgin devs were most familiar with Monotone, and weren't sufficiently familiar with git; hence, they didn't know how to do a fair comparison. First of all, sure, if they are willing to use a single working directory and want to switch between branches using "git checkout", that works well. But suppose they really want separate working directories. The simplist and easist way is to use "git clone -s". So if they do: git clone git://github.com/felipec/pidgin-clone.git pidgin git clone -s pidgin clone-1 git clone -s pidgin clone-2 git clone -s pidgin clone-3 git clone -s pidgin clone-4 git clone -s pidgin clone-5 git clone -s pidgin clone-6 git clone -s pidgin clone-7 git clone -s pidgin clone-8 git clone -s pidgin clone-9 git clone -s pidgin clone-10 The net disk usage is 746 megabytes, as compared to the 900 megabytes claimed in the blog post. The main difference is the git database is only takes 87 megabytes, compared to the 229 megabytes for the Monotone database. The main issue is the pidgin developers simply didn't know how to use the -s flag so they didn't need to duplicate the git database for every single clone. Shrug; whatever, I've always said the biggest issue for any tool is what the developers are familiar with. It may be that monotone was the right choice for the pidgin core developers, if they weren't familiar enough with git. - Ted