From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@horizon.com Subject: Does anyone have any benchmarks against CVS? Date: 11 Jun 2007 05:04:51 -0400 Message-ID: <20070611090451.26209.qmail@science.horizon.com> Cc: linux@horizon.com To: git@vger.kernel.org X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Mon Jun 11 11:05:41 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hxfpe-0002TP-RW for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:05:07 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755125AbXFKJEx (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:04:53 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753457AbXFKJEx (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:04:53 -0400 Received: from science.horizon.com ([192.35.100.1]:16335 "HELO science.horizon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1755267AbXFKJEw (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:04:52 -0400 Received: (qmail 26210 invoked by uid 1000); 11 Jun 2007 05:04:51 -0400 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: It seems to be common knowledge that git is a heck of a lot faster than CVS at most operations, but I'd like to do a little evangelizing and I can't seem to find a benchmark to support that claim. Am I just blind? I could find a code base and measure myself, but perhaps someone who's been hacking on CVS converters already has a reasonable code base in both forms that could be used for testing?