Re: MinGW port usable

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@eudaptics.com>
Date: Jan 30, 2007, 08:45 UTC
Message-ID: <45BF05BA.4B356B37@eudaptics.com>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0701291438580.3611@woody.linux-foundation.org>

Linus Torvalds wrote:

> Can you elaborate about any performance differences, especially with
> cygwin? Does this make git perform reasonably on Windows, or are the
> performance problems as bad as with cygwin?

Performance is horrid, although better than I initially expected. I don't (want to) have cygwin installed to compare it (that's why I did the MinGW port in the first place ;) Maybe others can comment on this?

The test suite takes ~15min to complete on my box, which is an oooold 800MHz with a slow HD. (And it's still Win2K, if that matters.)

Quite frankly, the "performance boost" that I expect from this port is that it allows me the workflow that I want, instead of constantly banging my head against the walls of CVS/SVN/you-name-it.

Show 6 quoted lines

> gitk really shouldn't use either. It should probably use
> 
>         git-show-ref -h -d
> 
> instead, which has the same output format (modulo a space vs tab issue),
> and is entirely local, with no silly unnecessary remote connext.

Thanks, this works (I tested Junio's version). The problem with ls-remote was that it is a shell script, and for some reason it dumps its output into a cmd.exe that opens and closes right away instead of to the pipe.

-- Hannes