Hi, On Mon, 11 Jun 2007, David Kastrup wrote: > linux@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > > It seems to be common knowledge that git is a heck of a lot faster than > > CVS at most operations, but I'd like to do a little evangelizing and > > I can't seem to find a benchmark to support that claim. > > > > Am I just blind? > > > > I could find a code base and measure myself, but perhaps someone who's > > been hacking on CVS converters already has a reasonable code base > > in both forms that could be used for testing? > > CVS and git do completely different things (which is one of the main > points of git). git tends to do its own things pretty fast, CVS tends > to its things more leasurely and with higher network impact. > Benchmarking is not really useful since both systems do different > things. I disagree. For quite some time (pre 2005), I used CVS to track some directories, where the "server" was a directory on the same machine. This is exactly the same workflow as I do now with Git. So I will try to come up with a sensible test this afternoon (If I can get at a copy of QEmu's cvsroot, I'll try that) where I compare CVS and Git, both of which have the repository already set up. Okay, it is not completely fair, since Git _will_ blow CVS away, but linux-at-horizon asked for it. Sidenote: It was always a hassle to set up the initial version with CVS. Funnily enough, the "CVS done right" SCM has the _same_ issue. I even presented Git to an svn user last week (not his fault, really, he was more than willing to try Git), and he was surprised that you could _continue_ working in the _same_ working directory as before, after git-init... Ciao, Dscho - 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
