On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 7:35 PM, Alberto Bertogli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 06, 2008 at 06:35:39PM -0700, Jason Dagit wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 5:47 PM, Anatoly Yakovenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > I would gladly contribute to darcs if I could use it. And I would use > > > it if it was fast (at worst twice as slow as git) and stable for the > > > simple things that i want to do. So this is a chicken and egg problem > > > for me. > > > > Interesting. Is your experience with darcs just with the GHC repository? > > Except for the darcs1 exponential merge problem, I would be surprised if > > darcs2 repositories are more than twice as slow as git for common > > operations. > > I don't want this to turn into "I'm faster/easier/whatever than you", > and personally I don't think the speed is the issue with small > repositories; but since you asked, and I've _just_ got into a situation > like this... Good point. No one wants to read a pissing contest. But, maybe we should have a "Version Control Shootout" ala http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/. We could probably even use their existing framework. You wouldn't need to be an expert at any particular version control system to establish a site like that and it could garner someone a decent bit of recognition as well as giving version control implementers some concrete goals. The more I think about it, the more I want that site now. Maybe I should start putting it together myself... > While tracking a darcsweb issue that was posted to the darcs-users list > (and it seems to be a darcs bug), I noticed that getting a diff for a > given patch felt slow. > > So when I saw your mail, I decided to make a quick comparison on the > time it took to get a diff (in each SCM native format, so nobody had to > play any conversion tricks.) > > A cache-hot 'darcs changes -v --match "hash \ > 20080806124109-2067a-217fcccd6ce7becfb9a07f10e6c4a29cb00805f5.gz"' > on a freshly-cloned darcs' repository takes 0.162s with and without > colors. > > A cache-hot 'git show 0ce3a7e5bd305e96c924fab1e3126480c665f017' on the > linux kernel repository takes 0.012s with nice coloring, 0.010s without. > > > That's easy math: 16 times slower (since darcs doesn't color the diff > but only the word "hunk", I think it's fair to use the 0.010s number). > > Yes, 0.16s may not seem like a lot to you, but when you're used to it > taking 0.01s, you notice. Wow, thanks. I prefer facts over anecdotes. Thanks for taking the time to run that experiment. That is quite a difference. Especially considering that the linux kernel has many more patches and files. I think I know part of the problem too. Was the git patch comparable in size to the darcs patch that you picked? Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
