Re: Does anyone have any benchmarks against CVS?

From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Jun 11, 2007, 22:45 UTC
Message-ID: <7vlkeqnm96.fsf@assigned-by-dhcp.pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <46a038f90706111454i5f4898b5kd77d18f4a893904e@mail.gmail.com>

"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. git status is not about "the current status of working tree" but about "what I would commit if I were to say git-commit at this moment". "cvs status" does a lot more, I think. Also I haven't met anybody who says "cvs status" is useful; people seem to use "cvs -q update -n" often when they want to know "what's different between me and upstream"?

>   - cvs update vs git pull

While that is a valid comparison, I think CVS users use "cvs update" (especially "cvs -q update -n" variant) far more frequently for the purpose of seeing "what did I change so far" than truly try to update from the upstream. So a comparison that has more real-life significance would be "cvs -q update -n" vs "git diff --name-status HEAD".

There are a handful more.

 - "git pull -n" vs "cvs up" when your tree is clean and you are
   a dozen revs behind.

 - "cvs co -rother-branch" vs "git checkout other-branch".

 - "cvs diff -rold-version" vs "git diff old-version".

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

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

 - "git log path/to/directory/" vs its cvs equivalent