From: Matt Mackall Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 07:40:43 GMT Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark Message-ID: <20050429074043.GT21897@waste.org> In-Reply-To: <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1> On Fri, Apr 29, 2005 at 02:40:31AM -0400, Sean wrote: > > - no way to do efficient delta storage > > This has been discussed. It is a recognized and accepted design > trade-off. Disk is cheap. This trade-off FAILS, as my benchmarks against Mercurial have shown. It trades 10x disk space for maybe 10% performance relative to my approach. Meanwhile, it makes a bunch of other things hard, namely the ones I've listed. Yes, you can hack around them, but the back end will still be bloated. > Your concearns are about performance rather than real limitations and it's > just too damn early in the development process for that. Frankly it's > amazing how good git is considering its age; it's already _way_ faster and > easier to use than bk ever was for my use. Mercurial is even younger (Linus had a few days' head start, not to mention a bunch of help), and it is already as fast as git, relatively easy to use, much simpler, and much more space and bandwidth efficient. -- Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.