Re: Try Mercurial, not only git

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: Try Mercurial, not only git
by Andreas on Friday 18/Jan/2008, @03:29

In my experience Mercurial is *faster* than git for operations involving much disk access (that means most operations). For SCMs the bottleneck is disk seek time and Mercurial apparently has a well-tuned file layout to decrease the number of disk seeks. This is not very important, though. If git became as user friendly as Mercurial tomorrow I wouldn't care which one was chosen - they are both fast.

Related Links

·   Articles on Community and Events
·   Also by Andreas
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Re: Try Mercurial, not only git
by Paul on Friday 18/Jan/2008, @08:12

Please explain in what way hg is more user friendly than git? I was able to start working with git in 10 minutes (same with hg by the way), it's just the same clone, pull, commit, checkout, merge, branch etc... I find it much easier than svn actually but just as easy than hg.

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"Feature freeze: You're allowed to add new bugs, but no new features." -- Richard J. Moore
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.