From: Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:29:04 GMT
Subject: Re: git and bzr
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

real    0m7.577s
user    0m7.248s
sys     0m0.020s

while without content copying and moving detection we have

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

real    0m2.108s
user    0m2.044s
sys     0m0.024s

(on 2000 BogoMIPS CPU).