Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 10:11:16PM CEST, I got a letter
where Matt Mackall [off-list ref] told me that...

On Thu, May 12, 2005 at 08:23:41PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:

quoted

Dear diary, on Thu, May 12, 2005 at 11:44:06AM CEST, I got a letter
where Matt Mackall [off-list ref] told me that...

quoted

Mercurial is more than 10 times as bandwidth efficient and
considerably more I/O efficient. On the server side, rsync uses about
twice as much CPU time as the Mercurial server and has about 10 times
the I/O and pagecache footprint as well.

Mercurial is also much smarter than rsync at determining what
outstanding changesets exist. Here's an empty pull as a demonstration:

 $ time hg merge hg://selenic.com/linux-hg/
 retrieving changegroup

 real    0m0.363s
 user    0m0.083s
 sys     0m0.007s

That's a single http request and a one line response.

So, what about comparing it with something comparable, say git pull over
HTTP? :-)

..because I get a headache every time I try to figure out how to use git? :-P

Seriously, have a pointer to how this works?

Either you use cogito and just pass cg-clone an HTTP URL (to the git
repository as in the case of rsync -
http://www.kernel.org/pub/scm/cogito/cogito.git should work), or you
invoke git-http-pull directly (passing it desired commit ID of the
remote HEAD you want to fetch, and the URL; see
Documentation/git-http-pull.txt).

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
Stuff: http://pasky.or.cz/
C++: an octopus made by nailing extra legs onto a dog. -- Steve Taylor