> "so I doubt possible added performance can matter much." From the linked "Mozilla moving FireFox to Git" blog post: > "a Mercurial and a Git mirror of the F

> "so I doubt possible added performance can matter much." From the linked "Mozilla moving FireFox to Git" blog post: > "a Mercurial and a Git mirror of the Firefox source repository [...] I think I just wanted the speed that Mercurial was not providing. Not that Mercurial was that slow, but the difference between a couple seconds and a couple hundred milliseconds was a significant enough difference in user experience for me to prefer Git" > "as time was passing and the size and depth of the Mercurial repository was growing, these tools were showing their limits and were too slow for my taste, especially for the initial clone." > "My user experience with Mercurial had reached a level of dissatisfaction that was enough for me to decide to take that script from a couple years prior and make it work for incremental updates. [...] You could get a full clone of mozilla-central in less than half an hour, when at the time, other similar tools would take more than 10 hours (needless to say, it's even worse now)." > "the repository growth didn't take a break, and the Try repository was becoming an increasing pain, with push times quite often exceeding 10 minutes." And in the comments: > "There is at least one currently very active (but private) repository that is (much) larger than Mozilla’s at Jane Street. We (Octobus) are working with them to improve a lot of aspects of Mercurial’s speed."