On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@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 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
