fedora considering hg

Matt Mackall mpm at selenic.com
Fri Nov 17 14:29:41 CST 2006

On Fri, Nov 17, 2006 at 08:50:39PM +0100, solo turn wrote:
> i wonder what mercurial connosceurs say to carl's mail:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2006-November/msg00074.html,
> escpecially point c) to e).

Chris Mason did a set of benchmarks for me during this year's OLS that
showed commits in Mercurial were still substantially faster than git.
He used git and mq to commit 773 patches (20MB) from the Linux -mm
tree to 2.6.18-rc1.

 $ git-quilt-import 2.6.18-rc1-mm2
 real: 2m7.701s user: 1m15.953s sys: 0m30.186s

 $ hg qpush -a 2.6.18-rc1-mm2
 real: 1m18.398s user: 0m42.511s sys: 0m10.105s

And we've had a very nice bisect extension for a year now.

Finally, I'm going to have to call bullshit on point b). Practically,
git use on a large project requires the use of regular packing. And
packing means rewriting _everything_. It's not hard to imagine how
that could be vulnerable to data loss. And of course, Mercurial has
the same strong hash error detection that git does.

Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.

More information about the Mercurial mailing list