[OT] Question about Git branches

[Chris Angelico]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 2:08 AM, Robert Kern <robert.kern at gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, but this is due to different design decisions of git and Mercurial. git
> prioritized the multiple branches in a single clone use case; Mercurial
> prioritized re-cloning. It's natural to do this kind of branching in git,
> and more natural to re-clone in Mercurial.

Ah, I wasn't aware of that philosophical difference. Does hg use
hardlinks or something to minimize disk usage when you clone, or does
it actually copy everything? (Or worse, does it make the new directory
actually depend on the old one?)

ChrisA