Re: git and bzr

From

Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>

Date

Nov 28, 2006, 17:29 UTC

Message-ID

<ekhrhi$g6t$1@sea.gmane.org>

In-Reply-To

<456C6CBB.70702@utoronto.ca>

Aaron Bentley wrote:

> Linus Torvalds wrote:

>> So yes, "git blame" is a _hell_ of a lot more powerful than anybody elses 
>> "annotate", as far as I know. I literally suspect that nobody else comes 
>> even close.

Well without the content based detection of contents copying and moving
which git-blame wouldn't work as well as it work now.
 

> I notice that blame has an option to limit the annotation to recent
> history.  I can only assume that is for performance reasons.  bzr
> annotate doesn't need a feature like that, because annotations are
> explicit in bzr's storage format. 

But you don't have content movement tracking.

> 
>                                   I expect that even if we were to 
> extend annotate to track content across files, it would still be so fast
> that we wouldn't need it.

I think not.

The first example:

$ time git blame -C revision.c >/dev/null

while without content copying and moving detection we have

$ time git blame revision.c >/dev/null

(on 2000 BogoMIPS CPU).