[Kde-scm-interest] Mercurial

[Thomas Zander]

On Thursday 04 October 2007 06:29:51 Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> Of course, the general workflow is the same as with Git or Bazaar. You
> clone a remote repo, and most of the time you clone it again to keep a
> clean clone of the remote. Mercurial hardlinks the files that constitute
> the repo, so cloning locally is really cheap.

In what turns out to be a killer feature (that I was missing from Darcs) 
git has the ability to switch to another branch without doing a new 
clone. This means I can switch branches without doing a full recompile, 
just a recompile of the stuff that changed whereas in darcs I had to do a 
full recompile since there was a complete copy of the sourcetree.

Not only is this a huge timesaver when you want to use a branch for some 
work, it also means you can branch even if you are low on diskspace.

So, cloning locally is actually free in git ;)

Pierre, have you tried git? I think that's essential to suggesting an 
alternative so you can state what is better or worse in the tool of your 
choice.
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-scm-interest/attachments/20071004/fe9008e6/attachment.pgp