[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: git is a lot better than SVN (???)

From: Antoine Pitrou <solipsis_at_pitrou.net>
Date: 2005-08-17 18:00:17 CEST

Check the first link. There is useful info about scaling of the compared
systems. Bottomline is that Mercurial compresses redundancy between
revisions very efficiently, while other distributed systems (git,
bazaar-ng) may not do as well.

I've only tried importing Linus' 2.6 tree (*) using the hg mirror and I
can say it's reasonably fast on a DSL line (for 5000 changesets on the
whole tree).

(*) "hg clone http://www.kernel.org/hg/linux-2.6 hg-linux"

Le mercredi 17 août 2005 à 09:41 -0600, Carl Baldwin a écrit :
> In what sense is the 'large-scale efficiency' better than git? From the
> homepage its hard to tell the difference between it and git.
>
> Carl
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2005 at 05:35:41PM +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> >
> > You might also want to try Mercurial, which has similar functionality to
> > git, bazaar et al., but seems to have much better large-scale
> > efficiency:
> > http://www.selenic.com/hg/?cmd=file;filenode=b0166ba7a8977756db92a88634da162844af978f;file=comparison.txt
> >
> > (home page: http://www.selenic.com/mercurial/)
> >
> > regards
> >
> > Antoine.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 17 18:07:37 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.