On 2014-09-16 17:25, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, but this is due to different design decisions of git and Mercurial. git
prioritized the multiple branches in a single clone use case; Mercurial
prioritized re-cloning. It's natural to do this kind of branching in git,
and more natural to re-clone in Mercurial.
Ah, I wasn't aware of that philosophical difference. Does hg use
hardlinks or something to minimize disk usage when you clone, or does
it actually copy everything? (Or worse, does it make the new directory
actually depend on the old one?)
I haven't kept up with the internals recently, but at least at one point,
hardlinks were the order of the day, yes.
--
Robert Kern
"I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma
that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had
an underlying truth."
-- Umberto Eco
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
