svn vs. hg vs. git for home directories

[Peter Arrenbrecht]

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:54 PM, Bryan O'Sullivan <bos at serpentine.com> wrote:
> John D. Mitchell wrote:
>
>  > I'm a bit confused as to why hg shows so poorly w.r.t. the small files
>  > in the sizing comparison.
>
>  A git pack acts similarly to concatenating all of the files and
>  compressing them in one go.  Since it has more entropy to work with, it
>  can do a better job of compressing everything.  Mercurial deals with
>  files individually, so it can't gain that same benefit.
>
>  A best-of-both-worlds approach would be to use a pack file for the
>  initial clone of a repository, with revlogs for subsequent changes.
>  That would get rid of git's silly repacking (which remains silly even if
>  git does it automatically for you, as it does now), but still give
>  excellent compression ratios in general, as most repositories contain
>  few changes relative to their upstream counterparts.

Would this be like a plain repo on top of a bundle repo (which
ususally is the other way around today)?