Re: Patches
On Friday, 28 April 2006 at 20:53, Rocco Rutte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> * Brendan Cully [06-04-28 13:46:51 -0700] wrote:
>
> >you might consider mercurial. See mutt.kublai.com for hg/git/darcs
> >repositories and some surprising stats about relative repository sizes
> >(mutt's changelog commits are probably why git does so badly). The
> >upcoming mercurial 0.9 release does even better.
>
> I still have minor concerns that a python-based solution can do faster
> than the coding style of git. With repacking everything into just one
> git pack I get around 24 with my 16 local branches and changes.
you ought to try it - it's really very fast. Performance and
scalability are hg's primary concerns. And frankly, a repository
that's 1/15th the size is probably going to be faster regardless of
whether the tool is in C or python.
> I just don't want to deal with installing git (or whatever) on the
> target machine and rsync would be painfully slow with my uplink.
hg is also very easy to install, and I believe its network protocol is
significantly faster than git's.
> So the patches I dump out of my git tree must be sufficient. ;-)
>
> But thanks for the suggestion!
ok, enough evangelizing :)