5 ms·

Nice FUD, Git has been running just fine on windows for years.

gecko 17y ago
While msysgit runs okay on Windows as of fairly recently, for a very long time, Git had very bad performance on Windows, and required Cygwin. Saying that it ran fine for years is pretty bad hyperbole--especially since both Git and Mercurial are only about two years old at this point.
- freetard 17y ago
  Yeah, except that Git is 5 years old and that the Cygwin requirement was just a dll that came _with_ the installer and was _automatically_ installed with Git. Nobody would notice except people that had an agenda against git (hg supporters, svn etc). Edit: about performance, while Git was slower on windows than on linux, it was still faster than both SVN and Mercurial.
  - freetard 17y ago
    Interesting, I'm getting downvoted for telling the truth. Maybe I should just go with the HN flow so here it goes: Git still doesn't work well on windows and it's damn slow and only 2 years old, also running it with cygwin was a pain because you had to install it manually and stuff. High 5 y'all! /me disappointed by HN, expected better than reddit like users.
    - deleted 17y ago
      [deleted]
  - inaequitas 17y ago
    People don't have an agenda against git — it simply doesn't work for them. It's not the holy grail of DVCS', and neither are Hg or bzr; different tools for different people. Where are you getting your performance results from? The footnote from Google's article[1] on choosing between Mercurial and git states that Hg was faster both over HTTP and when compared to git's wire protocol. But I'm willing to admit those numbers may be old, so is there a newer published benchmark anywhere? [1]: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
    - freetard 17y ago
      Where does it say that HG http is faster than git://? And second git local operations are way faster than hg's. But google only care about http obviously. Note that android and chromium both use git on google's servers and they employed some of the core git devs so it's only a matter of time before git becomes available on google code.
      - inaequitas 17y ago
        Hg - 8.1s/clone, 1.5s/pull git:// - 8.7s/clone, 2.8s/pull Again though, I was curious if you had some numbers. I'm not here to argue which is better, because, really, it's a subjective argument.
        freetard 17y ago
        I said git local operations are way faster, google them.
- dscho 17y ago
  IMHO too many people trash-talk Git for Windows without even knowing properly what they are talking about. For example, timing clone. WTF? Do you clone all the time? Neither do I. Measure something that you really use very often, if you do not want to be mistaken for an incompetent script kiddie. Further, I am not exactly thrilled by the claim that it runs okay "as of fairly recently". There haven't been all that many changes over the last year. So you are obviously wrong. It is also a insult on our work, which you should be fairly ashamed of. Ciao, Dscho P.S.: what kind of "Hacker News" are shown on this site when you cannot even comment using w3m? WTF?

gecko 17y ago

While msysgit runs okay on Windows as of fairly recently, for a very long time, Git had very bad performance on Windows, and required Cygwin. Saying that it ran fine for years is pretty bad hyperbole--especially since both Git and Mercurial are only about two years old at this point.

freetard 17y ago
Yeah, except that Git is 5 years old and that the Cygwin requirement was just a dll that came _with_ the installer and was _automatically_ installed with Git. Nobody would notice except people that had an agenda against git (hg supporters, svn etc). Edit: about performance, while Git was slower on windows than on linux, it was still faster than both SVN and Mercurial.
- freetard 17y ago
  Interesting, I'm getting downvoted for telling the truth. Maybe I should just go with the HN flow so here it goes: Git still doesn't work well on windows and it's damn slow and only 2 years old, also running it with cygwin was a pain because you had to install it manually and stuff. High 5 y'all! /me disappointed by HN, expected better than reddit like users.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
- inaequitas 17y ago
  People don't have an agenda against git — it simply doesn't work for them. It's not the holy grail of DVCS', and neither are Hg or bzr; different tools for different people. Where are you getting your performance results from? The footnote from Google's article[1] on choosing between Mercurial and git states that Hg was faster both over HTTP and when compared to git's wire protocol. But I'm willing to admit those numbers may be old, so is there a newer published benchmark anywhere? [1]: http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis http://code.google.com/p/support/wiki/DVCSAnalysis
  - freetard 17y ago
    Where does it say that HG http is faster than git://? And second git local operations are way faster than hg's. But google only care about http obviously. Note that android and chromium both use git on google's servers and they employed some of the core git devs so it's only a matter of time before git becomes available on google code.
    - inaequitas 17y ago
      Hg - 8.1s/clone, 1.5s/pull git:// - 8.7s/clone, 2.8s/pull Again though, I was curious if you had some numbers. I'm not here to argue which is better, because, really, it's a subjective argument.
      - freetard 17y ago
        I said git local operations are way faster, google them.
dscho 17y ago
IMHO too many people trash-talk Git for Windows without even knowing properly what they are talking about. For example, timing clone. WTF? Do you clone all the time? Neither do I. Measure something that you really use very often, if you do not want to be mistaken for an incompetent script kiddie. Further, I am not exactly thrilled by the claim that it runs okay "as of fairly recently". There haven't been all that many changes over the last year. So you are obviously wrong. It is also a insult on our work, which you should be fairly ashamed of. Ciao, Dscho P.S.: what kind of "Hacker News" are shown on this site when you cannot even comment using w3m? WTF?