3 ms·
Mercurial performance is still terrible for large codebases.
by i_like_apis 4y ago
Mercurial performance is still terrible for large codebases.
- skinnymuch 4y agoSomeone said it is their job to keep HN a nice place. I will try to follow suit. Could you provide citations or evidence to such a claim? In following HN guidelines, I did not do a quick dismissal. I spent time and ran tests. I do not see the same conclusions. I am ready to post up some data in good faith.
- i_like_apis 4y agoI work with (a fork of) Mercurial + a huge codebase. Checkout and merge operations in a local repo frequently take minutes. Perhaps there is something I don't understand going on, or perhaps it is the age of the fork. But I don't think so it, because I think it would have been fixed. > I spent time and ran tests. Ok? Share 'em. The scale I'm talking about is ginormous though. (Roughly: multiple GBs, 100k+ files & probably 250k+ commits in history). For all I know it could be state-of-the-art performance for the scale, but repeat tasks taking minutes is still bad news.