[slime-devel] CVS and friends
asf at boinkor.net
Tue Aug 24 18:06:55 UTC 2010
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 18:39, <dherring at tentpost.com> wrote:
> It has been my experience that synchronizing large projects is generally
> faster with git since it just grabs a few patches instead of checking each
> file individually. Git is only somewhat slower when doing the initial
> clone. That said, http-backed git repos are generally a few times slower
> than repos using the native protocol.
I'll chime in with some data about the slime git mirror I've been keeping:
The (packed, compressed) repo size is 79MB right now, and a fresh
clone fetches all of it (unless you use --reference on an existing
clone, which speeds things up a /lot/). This means a fresh checkout
can take a while on a slower line. Just yesterday, I had to wait more
than just a few minutes for my 2MBit/s line to finish sucking down
slime. However, I don't expect hg or bzr to perform much better (or
worse) than this.
However, an update from one day to the next generally takes ~1 second,
transferring just a couple dozen kilobytes on very few server round
trips (could just be one, I don't know the git protocol by heart).
Again, I don't expect any modern VCS like hg or bzr to perform much
better or worse than this.
Speaking as a user, I'd be happy to have the authoritative slime
development history available offline, with uniquely identifiable
commits, so any of the saner VCSs is fine by me.
Andreas Fuchs, (http://|im:asf@|mailto:asf@)boinkor.net, antifuchs
More information about the slime-devel