3 ms·
I think you'll find that whatever git does, it's faster than the corresponding operation in SVN. When you send commits to a remote server, git compresses them
by chousuke 17y ago
I think you'll find that whatever git does, it's faster than the corresponding operation in SVN.
When you send commits to a remote server, git compresses them and sends the packfile over the network. The server will refuse non-fast forward merges (the branch you're pushing is supposed to be merged by you first, locally) so it pretty much has nothing to do but uncompress the changes and apply them. Unless you have a really slow network or are sending an insane number of commits, it's not going to take longer than a few seconds.
Cloning big repositories (like emacs, with ~25 years of history) can take a while if you have a slow network, but sometimes it feels like git can actually clone a repository faster than SVN can check out a single revision.
But repos like emacs' are rare. Often, SVN repositories end up being huge because they contain the code of many unrelated projects. In Git, having such a huge repository is impractical; each project should have its own repository. There is support for submodules though, so you can make a "master" repo that contains pointers to the child repositories, if you really have to.