"Giovanni Bajo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| In other words, what I see mostly in this thread is that people are worried | because of what we usually call "micro-benchmarks" (e.g. "raw cvs diff time | for a single time across two revisions"), People have been asked to voice their concerns and I think so far what we're seeing is expected. People are concerned about the benefits they get compared to the costs. Those who do regular diffs across versions are concerned about the efficiency of those operations in the new system. So they go and do measurements. Disk space is an issue too. So is upgrade to new tools. Labelling it "micro-benchmarks" will not change the reality for them. I believe you have to admit that not everybody is going to benefit equally from the system. And given that, I think one should pay respect to people's concerns and constraints. | which is of course important (and | svn is mostly faster except a couple of corner-cases); but some seem to miss | that real-world workflow benchmarks (e.g. "time to backport a patch") are | several times better with svn, because of the higher-level commands and | concepts it provides. if that is indeed the case, then it will come true to them not necessarily because they have been labelled "marginals" or "myopic". -- Gaby
