Linus Torvalds wrote: > Can you elaborate about any performance differences, especially with > cygwin? Does this make git perform reasonably on Windows, or are the > performance problems as bad as with cygwin? Performance is horrid, although better than I initially expected. I don't (want to) have cygwin installed to compare it (that's why I did the MinGW port in the first place ;) Maybe others can comment on this? The test suite takes ~15min to complete on my box, which is an oooold 800MHz with a slow HD. (And it's still Win2K, if that matters.) Quite frankly, the "performance boost" that I expect from this port is that it allows me the workflow that I want, instead of constantly banging my head against the walls of CVS/SVN/you-name-it. > gitk really shouldn't use either. It should probably use > > git-show-ref -h -d > > instead, which has the same output format (modulo a space vs tab issue), > and is entirely local, with no silly unnecessary remote connext. Thanks, this works (I tested Junio's version). The problem with ls-remote was that it is a shell script, and for some reason it dumps its output into a cmd.exe that opens and closes right away instead of to the pipe. -- Hannes - 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