Re: [VOTE] git versus mercurial (for DragonflyBSD)

["Felipe Contreras" <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>]

On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm not sure if Mercurial mailing list is not subscribe only. Git isn't.
>
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2008, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 4:15 PM, Jakub Narebski <jnareb@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > [Cc: gmane.comp.version-control.git,
>> >     gmane.comp.version-control.mercurial.general]
>
>> > 3. Repository design and performance.
>
>> >   Git and Mercurial have similar performance, although it is thought
>> >   that due to design Mercurial has faster patch applying and is
>> >   optimized for cold cache case, while Git has faster merging and is
>> >   optimized for warm cache case.
>> >
>> >   Mercurial may have (or had) problems with larger binary files, from
>> >   what I have heard.
>>
>> The fact that hg is changeset based means that certain operations are
>> slower, like checkout a specific commit. In hg my bet is you would
>> need to gather a bunch of changesets while in git the operation is
>> done in a single step.
>
> Actually from what I have read Mercurial stores current version
> (snapshot) from time to time, so time to resolve specific commit is
> limited.  Also if you have packed your Git repository (good idea not
> only to limit size, but also for performance (I/O performance)), then
> resolving specific commit also might require some delta resolution
> (by default delta chain length is limited to 50, see pack.depth).

Ah, ok, good to know.

>> It also means that bare clones are not possible in hg, or at least
>> very complicated.
>
> I think it is things like .hgtags which make bare clones (without
> working directory) to be hard or even impossible in Mercurial.

Oops, I meant shallow clones (git clone --depth=1).

-- 
Felipe Contreras