Subject: Re: Git benchmark - comparison with Bazaar, Darcs, Git and Mercurial

From: Theodore Tso <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 05:24:29 -0400

On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:50:48PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> I would call aversion to -l a superstition, while aversion to -s
> has a sound technical reasons.  The latter means you need to know
> what you are doing --- namely, you are making the clone still
> dependent on the original.

So would you accept a patch which adds a git-config variable which
specifies whether or not local clones should use hard links by default
(defaulting to yes), and which adds a --no-hard-links option to
git-clone to override the config option?

I could imagine a situation where if you are using a git repository
exclusively on a local system, with no remote repositories to act as
backups, where you might want git clone to to make full copies to
provide backups in case of filesystem or disk induced corruption.  But
most of the time there are enough copies of the the repo on other
machines that the need for making separate copies of the git
objects/packs isn't really needed.

					- Ted