Version Control Software

[Chris Angelico]

On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 14:13:13 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
>> I didn't think there would be that much difference, tbh. Mainly, I'm
>> just seeing cpython as not being 200MB of history, or so I'd thought.
>> Pike has ~30K commits (based on 'git log --oneline|wc -l'); CPython has
>> roughly 80K (based on 'hg log|grep changeset|wc -l' - there's likely an
>> easier way but I don't know Mercurial). So yeah, okay, it's been doing
>> more. But I still don't see 200MB in that. Seems a lot of content.
>
> If you're bringing in the *entire* CPython code base, as shown here:
>
> http://hg.python.org/
>
> keep in mind that it includes the equivalent of four independent
> implementations:
>
> - CPython 2.x
> - CPython 3.x
> - Stackless
> - Jython

Hrm. Why are there other Pythons in the cpython repository? Yes,
CPython 2.x and 3.x, but why the other two?

> Plus, no offence intended at Pike which I'm sure is an awesome language,
> but it may not be quite as much active development as Python... as you
> point out yourself, there are nearly three times as many commits to
> CPython as to Pike, which coincidentally (or not) corresponds to the
> CPython repo being nearly three times as large as the Pike repo.

Yeah. Actually, I suspect that what's going on here, and what led to
my confusion, is that Pike wasn't always done using git, so quite a
few of the earlier versions simply aren't here. So it's an error in my
perceptions rather than any real difference.

However, comparisons aside, 200MB is still a fair bit to fetch before
doing anything with Python. Does Mercurial have any equivalent of
git's shallow clone feature?

ChrisA