Re: Switching from CVS to GIT

[Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>]

Hi,

On Tue, 16 Oct 2007, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2007 13:29:41 +0100 (BST)
> > From: Johannes Schindelin <Johannes.Schindelin@gmx.de>
> > cc: Andreas Ericsson <ae@op5.se>, barkalow@iabervon.org, raa.lkml@gmail.com, 
> >     tsuna@lrde.epita.fr, git@vger.kernel.org
> > 
> > > > 	removed: README
> > > > 	untracked: readme
> > > 
> > > This is a non-issue, then: Windows filesystems are case-preserving, so 
> > > if `README' became `readme', someone deliberately renamed it, in which 
> > > case it's okay for git to react as above.
> > 
> > No, it is not.  On FAT filesystems, for example, I experienced Windows 
> > happily naming a file "head" which was created under then name "HEAD".
> 
> What program did that, and how did you see that the file was named
> "head" instead of "HEAD"?

Git and ... Git.

> > > Something for Windows users to decide, I guess.  It's not hard to 
> > > refactor this, it just needs a motivated volunteer.
> > 
> > You?
> 
> Maybe some day.

Cool.

> > > Unless that 10K is a typo and you really meant 100K, I don't think 
> > > 10K files should take several seconds to scan on Windows.  I just 
> > > tried "find -print" on a directory with 32K files in 4K 
> > > subdirectories, and it took 8 sec elapsed with a hot cache.  So 10K 
> > > files should take at most 2 seconds, even without optimizing file 
> > > traversal code.  Doing the same with native Windows system calls 
> > > ("dir /s") brings that down to 4 seconds for 32K files.
> > 
> > On Linux, I would have hit Control-C already.  Such an operation 
> > typically takes less than 0.1 seconds.
> 
> We were not comparing Linux with Windows, we were talking about Windows 
> user experience.  On Windows 4 seconds is not too long.

Well, I was talking about user experience.  In this case of a user who 
happens to be on Windows, but knows Linux' speed.

Ciao,
Dscho