Re: Does anyone have any benchmarks against CVS?

From: Martin Langhoff <martin.langhoff@gmail.com>
Date: Jun 12, 2007, 06:58 UTC
Message-ID: <46a038f90706112358x5e2265fdu9aa58fb721641885@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vlkeqnm96.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com>

On 6/12/07, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 8 quoted lines

> "Martin Langhoff" <martin.langhoff@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > It _will_ be a bit of an apple-to-oranges comparison, but you could
> > use a few large-ish projects that have a published GIT gateway.
> > ...
> >   - cvs status vs git status
>
> This _is_ apples and oranges.

_All_ of them are ;-)

git-log is _not_ the same as cvs log. And a clone is not the same as a checkout, ever. Perhaps diff is the only reasonable comparison.

However, the benchmarks doco can show the comparative numbers and explain how those are different. Which is a great alibi to explain why almost all the git ops are insanely faster * and some of the interesting concepts behind git.

* - except clone - but mention "--references" to speed it up)

> people seem to use "cvs -q update -n" often
> when they want to know "what's different between me and
> upstream"?

I'm one of those ;-)

>  - "git am a-dozen-of-mails" vs its cvs equivalent.
>  - "git rebase a-dozen-of-commits" vs its cvs equivalent.

Don't thing those exist.

cheers

martin