Re: [VOTE] git versus mercurial (for DragonflyBSD)

From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 26, 2008, 19:07 UTC
Message-ID: <200810262007.30148.jnareb@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <94a0d4530810260857u7c0cb122g8147b9484108f539@mail.gmail.com>

I'm not sure if Mercurial mailing list is not subscribe only. Git isn't.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2008, Felipe Contreras wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Cc: gmane.comp.version-control.git,
> >     gmane.comp.version-control.mercurial.general]

> > 3. Repository design and performance.

Show 12 quoted lines

> >   Git and Mercurial have similar performance, although it is thought
> >   that due to design Mercurial has faster patch applying and is
> >   optimized for cold cache case, while Git has faster merging and is
> >   optimized for warm cache case.
> >
> >   Mercurial may have (or had) problems with larger binary files, from
> >   what I have heard.
> 
> The fact that hg is changeset based means that certain operations are
> slower, like checkout a specific commit. In hg my bet is you would
> need to gather a bunch of changesets while in git the operation is
> done in a single step.

Actually from what I have read Mercurial stores current version
(snapshot) from time to time, so time to resolve specific commit is
limited.  Also if you have packed your Git repository (good idea not
only to limit size, but also for performance (I/O performance)), then
resolving specific commit also might require some delta resolution
(by default delta chain length is limited to 50, see pack.depth).

> It also means that bare clones are not possible in hg, or at least
> very complicated.

I think it is things like .hgtags which make bare clones (without working directory) to be hard or even impossible in Mercurial.

> Note: I'm not sure if what I'm claiming is correct.

Hmmm...

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland