5 ms·
git is as prone to bitrot as hg. git doesn't run fsck on the entire repo for each operation, and unless you fsck or clone you won't detect corruption for quite
by blibble 13y ago
git is as prone to bitrot as hg.
git doesn't run fsck on the entire repo for each operation, and unless you fsck or clone you won't detect corruption for quite a while.
it's exactly the same for hg, which is built on the same hashing concept as git (actually the other way round, as hg came first).
- jeltz 13y agoMercurial was announced on 2005-04-19 and git on 2005-04-07, so no Mercurial was not first. Edit: Monotone is older than git though.
- judk 13y agoI think we can state they weren't copying each other.
- jeltz 13y agoIndeed, they both were developed separately as a reaction to the BitKeeper drama.
- tonfa 13y agoI think both started on the same day (due to both authors being part of the kernel "kabal" and already in the known about the upcoming bk debacle). Mercurial was usable earlier though ;-) (the first git versions were really really low level, and did not include features like packs, while hg had high kevel command line and its compressed storage format from the first release)
- twic 13y agoMoreover, Mercurial's storage scheme is built on append-only files, whereas Git periodically repacks its objects, which means that Mercurial actually has fewer opportunities for cosmic rays to hit the bits while they are in motion, and so less chance of corruption.
- codex 13y agoMost bit rot isn't due to cosmic rays, but rather to decay on the disk itself.
- mdellabitta 13y agoApparently, decay on the disk itself is sometimes caused by cosmic rays: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/gbbym/index.html http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19253-01/819-5461/gbbym/index.htm...