svn vs. hg vs. git for home directories
John D. Mitchell
jdmitchell at gmail.com
Fri Apr 25 16:09:45 UTC 2008
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:54 AM, Bryan O'Sullivan <bos at serpentine.com> wrote:
[...]
> A git pack acts similarly to concatenating all of the files and
> compressing them in one go. Since it has more entropy to work with, it
> can do a better job of compressing everything. Mercurial deals with
> files individually, so it can't gain that same benefit.
Got it. Thanks.
> A best-of-both-worlds approach would be to use a pack file for the
> initial clone of a repository, with revlogs for subsequent changes.
> That would get rid of git's silly repacking (which remains silly even if
> git does it automatically for you, as it does now), but still give
> excellent compression ratios in general, as most repositories contain
> few changes relative to their upstream counterparts.
And people get the repack just by cloning. Sweet.
And, it wouldn't change the guarantees of the append-only data store.
Do you have some gut feeling for it's affect on cloning speed?
Rock on,
John
More information about the Mercurial
mailing list