You know, I had bzr 1.17 or similar. I upgraded to 2.1 and got the same time (slightly over 25 seconds). git version is 1.7.0.3. Both on my mac (I don't do Windows). In both cases, it was whatever "<cmd> clone <url>" does by default. So pretty much, all defaults all around.
I mentioned this because someone else was saying it was as fast. I don't know anything about the n= things... I just ran "bzr log > /dev/null" and "git log > /dev/null" (my shell automatically times all commands).
I tend to use and search logs a lot in my projects. With 2s to generate a log output, you won't think about the cost of looking through the whole thing for something (I did similar in an active hg project earlier today).
I do get your point. It's not a... holistic benchmark. In another thread, someone called fowl on the article discussing size vs. bytes transferred. I thought it'd be better to think of that as time. Cloning roughly the same content via bzr and git (memcached master branch -- which is cloned at lp and contains just about the same history, though is somehow smaller at lp) takes a bit over 20 seconds and a bit under 4 seconds respectively.
I suppose it's valid to argue that you don't clone much, either. At some point, one would wonder whether you avoid certain things because they're slow.
Comments
You know, I had bzr 1.17 or similar. I upgraded to 2.1 and got the same time (slightly over 25 seconds). git version is 1.7.0.3. Both on my mac (I don't do Windows). In both cases, it was whatever "<cmd> clone <url>" does by default. So pretty much, all defaults all around.
I mentioned this because someone else was saying it was as fast. I don't know anything about the n= things... I just ran "bzr log > /dev/null" and "git log > /dev/null" (my shell automatically times all commands).
I tend to use and search logs a lot in my projects. With 2s to generate a log output, you won't think about the cost of looking through the whole thing for something (I did similar in an active hg project earlier today).
I do get your point. It's not a... holistic benchmark. In another thread, someone called fowl on the article discussing size vs. bytes transferred. I thought it'd be better to think of that as time. Cloning roughly the same content via bzr and git (memcached master branch -- which is cloned at lp and contains just about the same history, though is somehow smaller at lp) takes a bit over 20 seconds and a bit under 4 seconds respectively.
I suppose it's valid to argue that you don't clone much, either. At some point, one would wonder whether you avoid certain things because they're slow.