From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jakub Narebski Subject: Re: VCS comparison table Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:24:25 +0200 Organization: At home Message-ID: References: <200610201728.13327.jnareb@gmail.com> <200610201805.40235.jnareb@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: bazaar-ng@lists.canonical.com X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Fri Oct 20 18:25:49 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git@gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.176.167]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1GaxBP-0004VR-O4 for gcvg-git@gmane.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:25:20 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932273AbWJTQZP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932274AbWJTQZP (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:15 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2]:390 "EHLO ciao.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932273AbWJTQZO (ORCPT ); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:14 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1GaxAz-0004Q1-1q for git@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:24:53 +0200 Received: from host-81-190-23-110.torun.mm.pl ([81.190.23.110]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:24:53 +0200 Received: from jnareb by host-81-190-23-110.torun.mm.pl with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 18:24:53 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: git@vger.kernel.org Followup-To: gmane.comp.version-control.git X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host-81-190-23-110.torun.mm.pl Mail-Copies-To: jnareb@gmail.com User-Agent: KNode/0.10.2 Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: Jakub Narebski wrote: > Johannes Schindelin wrote: >> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: >>> Johannes Schindelin wrote: >>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote: >>>> >>>>> Christian MICHON wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> - git is the fastest scm around >>>>> >>>>> Mercurial also claims that. >>>> >>>> Funny. When you type in "mercurial" and "benchmark" into Google, the >>>> _first_ hit is into "git Archives: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb >>>> benchmark". Performed by the good Mercurial people. >>>> >>>> Leaving git as winner. >>> >>> Check out http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitBenchmarks section "Quilt import >>> comparison of Git and Mercurial" for the latest (OLS2006) benchmark >>> by Mercurial. >> >> Thanks for the hint! >> >> BTW the tests in Clone/status/pull make sense, especially the "4 times >> slower on pull/merge". In my tests, merge-recur (the default merge >> strategy, which was written in Python, and is now in C) was substantially >> faster. > > As it was mentioned somewhere else in this thread, to compare times > for pull/merge in git with other SCM one should in principle substract > time for diffstat/git diff --stat. Or as reminded, use -n, --no-summary option to git pull. BTW. I'd rather have -n == --no-commit for git pull... -- Jakub Narebski Warsaw, Poland ShadeHawk on #git