Re: Mercurial 0.4e vs git network pull

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
> Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter
> where Matt Mackall <mpm@xxxxxxxxxxx> told me that...
> > Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and
> > considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about
> > twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times
> > the I/O and pagecache footprint as well.
> > 
> > Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what
> > outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration:
> > 
> >  $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/
> >  retrieving changegroup
> > 
> >  real    0m0.363s
> >  user    0m0.083s
> >  sys     0m0.007s
> > 
> > That's a single http request and a one line response.
> 
> So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over
> HTTP? :-)

..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P

Seriously, have a pointer to how this works?

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/