Re: Rewriting bzrmerge.el

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Eli Zaretskii writes:

 > It would be more fair to compare the .bzr subdirectory of the Bazaar
 > repository with the .git subdirectory of the Git repository, in which
 > case Git wins with a 1:2 ratio

That's what I mean by "repo", and that's what I did.  Looking more
closely, I see some obsolete-packs which account for 1/3 of the space.
However, I've not made any commits to those branches, so they came
with the original clone somehow.

 > > Simply doing "git clone source-repo target-repo" uses very little
 > > extra space (or time) at clone time because the objects are
 > > hard-linked across directories by default.
 > 
 > That is true (even on Windows), but then one would need to pull twice,
 > once from upstream, the other time from the first clone to the second,
 > right?  Doesn't sound a net win to me.

Fetching takes negligible time locally, and if you're worried about
the typing write a shell function/script or an Emacs command.  OTOH,
if the merge part of pull breaks, it would break anyway, and you have
to fix that.

I think there's a huge amount of premature optimization going on here
(not from you: "make bootstrap" is an unacceptable time sink if you
can avoid it, finding ways to avoid it is not "premature").  Both the
space worries of people less experienced with git and the workflow
proposals of the experienced users really should be postponed until
the new git users actually run into those issues.