Jakub Narebski wrote:

quoted text
> Johannes Schindelin wrote:
>> 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.

Or as reminded, use -n, --no-summary option to git pull.

BTW. I'd rather have -n == --no-commit for git pull...
-- 
Jakub Narebski
Warsaw, Poland
ShadeHawk on #git


-
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