On 5/30/2013 5:56 PM, Johnny Stenback wrote:
Some of the known issues with embracing git are:
* Performance of git on windows is sub-optimal (we're
already working on it).
This has become a bit of an urban legend; I often see it repeated but
seldom with actual measurements. I don't think it's a valid reason to
avoid git unless there are specific cases where git's performance on
Windows is insufficient compared to hg's performance on Windows.
In some brief tests using hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central versus
github.com/mozilla/mozilla-central on a modern Core i7 laptop with SSD
and 8GB RAM, after throwing away the first result (so I'm measuring
"warm cache" times; "cold" times would be useful too but would take more
work for me to measure correctly):
log the last 10,000 changes:
git 0.745s
hg 2.570s
blame mobile/android/chrome/content/browser.xul:
git 1.015s
hg 0.830s
diff with no changes:
git 2.136s
hg 2.001s
status:
git 3.011s
hg 1.680s
commit one-line change to configure.in:
git 2.420s
hg 3.911s
clone from remote:
git 26m43s
hg 19m01s
pull from remote to an up-to-date clone:
git 1.585s
hg 0.875s
update working dir from tip to FIREFOX_AURORA_23_BASE:
git 16.008s
hg 25.704s
There *are* some cases where git is worse than hg on Windows, but hg is
as bad or worse for many common operations like log, diff, and commit.
Overall I find both painful on Windows, but neither noticeably better
than the other.
(And of course some of these tests are highly unfair because the git
repo has a more complete history than the hg one, or because they test
network or server performance that is unpredictable and may vary between
github and hg.m.o.)
_______________________________________________
dev-platform mailing list
dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
