Hi, 2011/5/3 Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > Brecht Machiels<brecht@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I've seen several independent benchmarks (they should be easy to find), >> and git is indeed the fastest and it's repositories are the smallest. > > It doesn't really matter which tool is the fastest at a specific action, but > if the tool's performance is acceptable. > While I guess that git will be faster overall compared to hg, I don't expect > it would be a performance issue to use either tool for our repository. > And while I would usually prefer hg over git, I think the missing hard link > feature of BFS simply disqualifies hg for now. And why not use git then, if > it comes down to preference, anyway? Actually, hg should not be disqualified because of BFS hard links. With the hg bookmarks extension you can create in-tree local light-weight 'branches'. In fact, this works exactly like how git works. So, like I said before, feature-wise there is no difference between these tools. [Some background, there is a difference between git and hg when it comes to branches. For hg, branch names are associated with changesets. So a changeset 'knows' it is part of a certain branch. In git, a branch name is really more a name that is associated with a head. The hg bookmarks extension brings this to hg: it allows you to give a name to a 'head' without inscribing it into changesets.] Regards, N>