From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Phillips Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.3 vs git benchmarks Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:49:50 -0400 Message-ID: <200504252149.50735.phillips@istop.com> References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Tue Apr 26 03:45:09 2005 Return-path: Received: from vger.kernel.org ([12.107.209.244]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1DQF88-0001L9-D7 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Tue, 26 Apr 2005 03:44:53 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261260AbVDZBts (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:49:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261255AbVDZBts (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:49:48 -0400 Received: from smtp.istop.com ([66.11.167.126]:47536 "EHLO smtp.istop.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261204AbVDZBtl (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:49:41 -0400 Received: from pulsar (phillips.tor.istop.com [66.11.182.115]) by smtp.istop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 700342B3F8; Mon, 25 Apr 2005 21:52:36 -0400 (EDT) To: Matt Mackall User-Agent: KMail/1.7 In-Reply-To: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Monday 25 April 2005 20:41, Matt Mackall wrote: > Despite the above, it compares pretty well to git in speed and is > quite a bit better in terms of storage space. By reducing the zlib > compression level, it could probably win across the board. Hi Matt, Congratulations on an impressive demo! How about actually checking the compression vs wall clock theory? And I probably don't have to mention psyco... Regards, Daniel