[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Git vs. Subversion. Which one?

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> SVN's major "con" is it being comparatively generous on local
> diskspace and it polluting a checked out source trees with huge
> amount of VCS-metadata files (git, mercurial do so as well).

Git and mercurial both keep their files in one top-level dir, e.g.
.git or .hg.  This doesn't count as "polluting the tree" in my mind.
It's certainly not as annoying as the "CVS" dirs that CVS puts all
over my tree.

Sure, the disk space is higher for a git clone than for a CVS
checkout, but with git you are getting the entire history of the
project instead of just one working copy as you do with CVS (or
Subversion) -- I consider this a free backup with each checkout.  The
advantage of not having to wait for diffs and logs across a network is
well worth the disk space.  And, if you're developing on a single box
holding the repository and working copy, both CVS and Subversion
generally use more disk space than git does -- with Subversion being
significantly worse than CVS in this area.

Git is also very efficient with regards to storage.  I have often
found that an entire git repository is significantly smaller than a
single Subversion working copy.  As another point of information,
according to http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitSvnComparsion, "the Mozilla
project's CVS repository is about 3 GB; it's about 12 GB in
Subversion's fsfs format. In Git it's around 300 MB."

Todd        OpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp
A pessimist is a person who has had to listen to too many optimists.
    -- Don Marquis

Attachment: pgpPfmAbsihY2.pgp
Description: PGP signature

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]