4 ms·

> Speed Actually in 2005 performance was pretty similar and for some workflows hg was definitely faster (patch + commit). Also before packs were introduced git

by tonfa 13y ago

> Speed Actually in 2005 performance was pretty similar and for some workflows hg was definitely faster (patch + commit). Also before packs were introduced git just used massive disk space (hg had smart storage from day one).

jordigh 13y ago
git is still slower than hg for some operations, such as blame and clone. I think it's fundamentally due to the nature of git's data structures, they just don't optimise for this case, but David Kastrup has boasted that he can fix git's slowness. I'm skeptical, but let's see...