Hacker News Reader

Comment by freetard | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, except that Git is 5 years old and that the Cygwin requirement was just a dll that came _with_ the installer and was _automatically_ installed with Git. Nobody would notice except people that had an agenda against git (hg supporters, svn etc).

Edit: about performance, while Git was slower on windows than on linux, it was still faster than both SVN and Mercurial.

View on HN

People don't have an agenda against git — it simply doesn't work for them. It's not the holy grail of DVCS', and neither are Hg or bzr; different tools for different people.

Where are you getting your performance results from? The footnote from Google's article[1] on choosing between Mercurial and git states that Hg was faster both over HTTP and when compared to git's wire protocol. But I'm willing to admit those numbers may be old, so is there a newer published benchmark anywhere?

[1]: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis

Where does it say that HG http is faster than git://? And second git local operations are way faster than hg's. But google only care about http obviously. Note that android and chromium both use git on google's servers and they employed some of the core git devs so it's only a matter of time before git becomes available on google code.

Hg - 8.1s/clone, 1.5s/pull git:// - 8.7s/clone, 2.8s/pull

Again though, I was curious if you had some numbers. I'm not here to argue which is better, because, really, it's a subjective argument.

I said git local operations are way faster, google them.

Interesting, I'm getting downvoted for telling the truth. Maybe I should just go with the HN flow so here it goes:

Git still doesn't work well on windows and it's damn slow and only 2 years old, also running it with cygwin was a pain because you had to install it manually and stuff. High 5 y'all!

/me disappointed by HN, expected better than reddit like users.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com