Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262838AbVD2RHt (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:07:49 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262842AbVD2RHt (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:07:49 -0400 Received: from fire.osdl.org ([65.172.181.4]:58303 "EHLO smtp.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262838AbVD2RHn (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:07:43 -0400 Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 10:09:38 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Matt Mackall cc: Sean , linux-kernel , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Mercurial 0.4b vs git patchbomb benchmark In-Reply-To: <20050429163705.GU21897@waste.org> Message-ID: References: <20050426004111.GI21897@waste.org> <20050429060157.GS21897@waste.org> <3817.10.10.10.24.1114756831.squirrel@linux1> <20050429074043.GT21897@waste.org> <20050429163705.GU21897@waste.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 799 Lines: 24 On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Matt Mackall wrote: > > That's because no one paid attention until I posted performance > numbers comparing it to git! Mercurial's goals are: > > - to scale to the kernel development process > - to do clone/pull style development > - to be efficient in CPU, memory, bandwidth, and disk space > for all the common SCM operations > - to have strong repo integrity Ok, sounds good. Have you looked at how it scales over time, ie what happens with files that have a lot of delta's? Let's see how these things work out.. Linus - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/