Re: Mercurial repo cloning

Guido Ostkamp <ooo <at> ostkamp.fastmail.fm> writes:

> Furthermore I strongly believe that using 'clone' might be a lot slower 
> than downloading a binary file (might it be a 'bundle' or a 'tarball') 
> over 'http' or 'ftp' with a modern download assistant using multiple 
> connection at the same time.

Thats why I proposed RelEng to make bundles (which are only tarballs in the
end) available. It is still under consideration, but I guess after the pilot
we will get bundles.

> Looking at SVN repo I had originally expected much more and huge 
> changesets but it seems DEV300 does not to contain the complete history.

AFAIK it does (well, complete master history).

> This means, 'clone' is not an option here, but one should 'clone' or 'cp' 
> an already existing copy of DEV300 locally, and then 'hg pull' that CWS 
> into the copy; otherwise everything is transferred again and much disk 
> space is wasted.

Yes, that is the usual practice.

Have Fun,

Bjoern