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

[Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1108 bytes --]

On Wed, 01 Aug 2007 03:15:25 -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>
> 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.

Personally, I think it would be a great default.

And I think the frequency with which you type this command is not a
good metric for deciding if a command-line option should be required.

Instead, the focus should be on having good defaults for a good user
experience, (for example, the benchmarking that started this thread
that gave a bad first impression of git).

So, just making git-clone go as fast as possible when local, without
requiring any additional options from the user, would be a very good
thing.

As for the concern that new users might do local clones in the hope to
get some redundancy, hopefully the fact that the operation is
instantaneous will give plenty of clue to the user that no redundancy
has been provided. That should be enough to send the user looking for
the documentation to find the --no-hard-links option.

-Carl

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]