Re: Mercurial "r####" numbers are not stable, use commit ids
Vladimir G. Ivanovic writes:
Designers make choices, and clearly Linus has chosen a design that
allows branches to be made very quickly. But, is there some other
common operation that takes longer in git than it does in Mercurial?
I'd expect that there is.
I rather doubt it on Mac OS X because of the startup overhead of the
Python interpreter and module imports, while git is a C program
(mostly). There might be no perceptible difference on systems with
better disk performance. But definitely Mercurial has no speed
advantage anywhere in my workflow.
The tradeoff that the Mercurial designers chose was (a) implementation
in a modern[1] somewhat OO garbage-collected language and (b) attention
to keeping the UI straightforward vs. (c) coding at a low level in C
for speed and (d) letting users shell-script their own UI.
The Mercurial designers also did a lot of optimization for programs
that are at least an order of magnitude bigger with two orders of
magnitude more history than XEmacs. It certainly *was* true, and
still *may* be, that some operations would be faster with Mercurial,
and/or would require more manual maintenance (ie, git-repack and
git-gc) than in Mercurial. But XEmacs isn't that big in either
dimension.
Footnotes:
[1] YMMV.
_______________________________________________
XEmacs-Beta mailing list
XEmacs-Beta(a)xemacs.org
http://calypso.tux.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xemacs-beta