Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>
Date: May 12, 2005, 20:14 UTC
Message-ID: <20050512201406.GJ324@pasky.ji.cz>
In-Reply-To: <20050512201116.GC5914@waste.org>

Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:11:16PM CEST, I got a letter where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that...

Show 26 quoted lines

> On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> > Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter
> > where Matt Mackall <mpm@selenic.com> told me that...
> > > Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and
> > > considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about
> > > twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times
> > > the I/O and pagecache footprint as well.
> > > 
> > > Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what
> > > outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration:
> > > 
> > >  $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/
> > >  retrieving changegroup
> > > 
> > >  real    0m0.363s
> > >  user    0m0.083s
> > >  sys     0m0.007s
> > > 
> > > That's a single http request and a one line response.
> > 
> > So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over
> > HTTP? :-)
> 
> ..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P
> 
> Seriously, have a pointer to how this works?

Either you use cogito and just pass cg-clone an HTTP URL (to the git repository as in the case of rsync - http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/cogito/cogito.git should work), or you invoke git-http-pull directly (passing it desired commit ID of the remote HEAD you want to fetch, and the URL; see Documentation/git-http-pull.txt).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor