Johannes Schindelin wrote:
quoted text
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006, Jakub Narebski wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Christian MICHON wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> - git is the fastest scm around
>>>> 
>>>> Mercurial also claims that.
>>> 
>>> Funny. When you type in "mercurial" and "benchmark" into Google, the 
>>> _first_ hit is into "git Archives: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb 
>>> benchmark". Performed by the good Mercurial people.
>>> 
>>> Leaving git as winner.
>>  
>> Check out http://git.or.cz/gitwiki/GitBenchmarks section "Quilt import 
>> comparison of Git and Mercurial" for the latest (OLS2006) benchmark
>> by Mercurial.
> 
> Thanks for the hint!
> 
> BTW the tests in Clone/status/pull make sense, especially the "4 times 
> slower on pull/merge". In my tests, merge-recur (the default merge 
> strategy, which was written in Python, and is now in C) was substantially 
> faster.

As it was mentioned somewhere else in this thread, to compare times
for pull/merge in git with other SCM one should in principle substract
time for diffstat/git diff --stat.

-- 
Jakub Narebski
Poland
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html