On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 23:40:51 +0800 CHENG Gao wrote: > *On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:52:53 -0500 > * Also sprach Sam Steingold : > > > Note however that with CVS, getting CVS head and building it is > > hardly more expensive than downloading a source tarball - wrt both > > bandwidth and disk space. With git, the situation is vastly > > different: you cannot just get the head, you always get the whole > > change history, so instead of 40MB, you will be getting and storing > > 200MB. This may not be a big deal these days for many people, but > > it might be a showstopper for some. > > Yes you are right. Ever I tried to git clone emacs git repo at home, > and it took forever so I had to abort the mission. I got a 2m ADSL at > home. Instead I git cloned it in office, and it took only several > minutes with 10M line. My experience and worry is git clone may be > slow for slow connections. good point, even in the U.S the midwest is still on dialup outside of the major metro regions. I am on broad-band so I never checked if git has a "resume" option to continue a clone operation that is interrupted, or if that is integral to clone. The second, third world is also a consideration e.g The current architect of the parrot project lives somewhere in Africa. There is alot of talent outside of the regions that are blinding on a connectivity map. Another thing that has not been mentioned is the usefulness of dropping or limiting history. I made a slight mistake in the arguments to git log and I ended up with a 23 Mb log buffer that went back to the 'mid 90's. Some potential pitfalls to consider. I don't think they are show-stoppers but they are scenarios that need consideration.