Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: > Scalability: > ============ > - overall perceived good performance, some were even quite enthusiastic > about it (SVN users are easy to please ...). > - there were three mentions of sub-par performance which all > have been investigated shortly: > - unexpected slow clone times on a very old machine with slow > disks and little memory: this machine was probably simply > underpowered for use with Mercurial, which is somewhat memory > intensive due to the implementation in python. Also there was > a misunderstanding about when hg uses hard links as an > optimization.
If that was true, please tell me why it also was that slow on my MacBook 2Ghz, 1GB RAM with (quite) fast disk, not an old like my Mac mini G4 with 512M RAM? But I told you that at that time, too > - unexpected slow update of the working tree: caused by using the > pure python replacements instead of the hg native shared libs. This > should be avoided by any project of the size of OOo. You didn't read what I wrote. How please is http://packages.debian.org/lenny/mercurial not using native libs? (See the libc6 dependency and the .sos). > Conclusion: > =========== > The purpose of the pilot was to find out if there are any important > aspects which render Mercurial unusable as SCM for OOo. We found that > there are none. This doesn't mean that Mercurial couldn't use some Not difficult if you ignore problems ;-( Regards, Rene --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
