On 03.05.2014 05:40, Felipe Contreras wrote:

>>> That's very interesting. Do you get similar improvements when doing
>>> something similar in Merurial (watchman vs . no watchman).
>> I have not tried it.  My understanding is that this is why Facebook
>> wrote Watchman and added support for it to Mercurial, so I would assume
>> that the improvements are at least this good.
> Yeah, my bet is that they are actually much better (because Mercurial
> can't be so optimized as Git).
> I'm interested in this number because if watchman in Git is improving it
> by 30%, but in Mercurial it's improving it by 100% (made up number),
> therefore it makes sens that you might want it more if you are using hg,
> but not so much if you are using git.
> Also, if similar repositories with Mercurial+watchman are actually
> faster than Git+watchman, that means that there's room for improvement
> in your implementation. This is not a big issue at this point of the
> process, just something nice to know.

The article at [1] has some details, they claim "For our repository, enabling 
Watchman integration has made Mercurial's status command more than 5x faster 
than Git's status command".


Sebastian Schuberth
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to