Jakub Narebski wrote: > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html