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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
