1. 18
  1.  

  2. 6

    Given the size of the repository, it’s not clear that Git would be significantly better or different.

    In all the really big repos I’ve used, a limit gets hit and some wacky customizations are applied. The alternative being that you just have to put up with the sluggishness.

    1. 3

      Facebook actually hit git’s limit a while back and contributed patches, etc to Mercurial to work with it. Really interesting stuff. But, stemming from that observation and other experiences, I am a superfan of breaking up repos in DVCS systems. I maintain a mercurial extension to coordinate many repos in a friendlier fashion than hg subrepos (guestrepo!).

      I’m kind of persuaded that dvcs is a smell at a stereotypical company though, I think there’s room for an excellent central VCS out there.

      1. 2

        I think where we’re heading with Mercurial over the long term is a set of tools that makes doing centralized-model development painless with DVCS tools, while retaining most of the benefits (smaller patches, pushing several in a group, etc) of a DVCS workflow. I don’t think it’s a smell at all.

        As for splitting repositories, there are definitely cases where it makes sense, but there’s also a huge benefit to having everything be in one giant repository.

        (Disclaimer: I work on source control stuff for a big company, with a focus on Mercurial stuff whenever possible.)

      2. 1

        FWIW, I use git with mozilla-central and find it a much more pleasing experience than hg (which I still export to when pushing to shared remote repos). That said, it is also what I am more familiar with, although I did use hg exclusively for a year or so.

        I really enjoy having everything in the game repo for many reasons such as the lack of syncing overhead, but it does tend to push performance of version control.

      3. 1

        We know, we know… configuring hg is a huge pain. There are plans to fix it.