Mercurial allegedly has some space-performance problems handling renames
of directories, which end up doubling the space used in the repo. This
might make the current implementation inefficient for large projects.
http://evadeflow.com/2011/04/why-not-mercurial/
On 05/07/11 19:12, Ricardo Gladwell wrote:
I always thought that the general consensus on the git vs. mercurial
debate as that mercurial is generally the better solution, especially
when it comes to handling large files/repos, but that git is more
established and therefore probably the better choice long-term.
--
Ben Caradoc-Davies <[email protected]>
Software Engineering Team Leader
CSIRO Earth Science and Resource Engineering
Australian Resources Research Centre
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
